ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Longer School Day

Damian Collins: What his policy is on the length of the school day; and if he will make a statement.

Dominic Raab: What plans he has to extend the school day.

Michael Gove: I would like to see state schools offer a school day that is nine or even 10 hours long, enabling schools to provide character building, extra-curricular activities and homework sessions. I look forward to working with schools to ensure that they have access to the resources necessary to provide these activities.

Damian Collins: Does the Secretary of State agree that lengthening the school day in this way will give more children the chance to benefit from a greater breadth of studies; an opportunity that too often has fallen only to those who can afford to pay for it?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we need to do is close the unacceptable gap in attainment between those who are fortunate enough to have parents who can pay for them to be educated privately and those in the state sector. The very best state schools recognise that a longer school day with additional extra-curricular activities is just one way of ensuring that all our children can succeed.

Dominic Raab: These plans would strengthen children’s education, ensure time for music, sport and other extra-curricular activities, ease the time pressure on teachers and help out working parents. I urge the Secretary of State not to allow the narrow vested interests of the unions to block the delivery of these plans.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These plans will ensure that a broader range of culturally enriching activities are available to young people. I am
	sure that the teaching unions will recognise that this is in their interests, and I hope they will embrace and support these changes.

Barry Sheerman: I know the Secretary of State sees himself as a big beast at the Cabinet table championing educational reform, but is he aware that most of us who wish well for our educational system want the big beast to be controlled by good information, good research and good evidence? What is the evidence for the longer school day?

Michael Gove: The evidence is there in the gap between, for example, the performance of independent fee-paying schools and state schools. If one looks at those children who get the best results at the end of primary school and what happens to those who go on to independent schools and those who stay in the state sector, one sees that at the moment those who go on to independent schools are more likely to get good GCSEs and A-levels. A longer school day is one of the ingredients that we believe will make a difference. It has already been the case that great state school heads—for example, Greg Martin at Durand academy—have come out and explained why, in their schools, a longer school day definitely helps children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to catch up with their peers.

Lucy Powell: I support the Secretary of State’s wish that school nurseries extend hours beyond the statutory 15 hours a week. Is he aware, however, that 21 local authorities, including my own in Manchester, already provide full-time nursery provision, but that this is being put at risk by funding changes from his Department? Is this not another example of his actions failing to match his words?

Michael Gove: I am delighted that so many schools and local authorities provide additional hours, and I work with schools to ensure that more can do so. Where local authorities experience difficulties in ensuring that parents receive the support they need, I want to ask tough questions about the leadership of those local authorities to make sure that they devote the same amount of care, attention and resource to helping disadvantaged children as my Department does.

Bob Russell: On the basis that there is more to education than the classroom, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had with various organisations—scouts, guides, cadets and so on—on how a longer school day would impact on the out-of-school activities that our young people undertake?

Michael Gove: I would hope that our voluntary organisations would play a part in making sure that more young people can enjoy the sort of character-building activities that those organisations believe in. Many scout troops already work closely with schools, and it is certainly the case that cadets are an integral part of the success of schools in the independent and state sectors. I want to do everything possible to ensure that children can enjoy those activities, and, in particular, that children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have not had the chance in the past, now have that opportunity.

School Opening (Bad Weather)

Philip Hollobone: If he will take steps to ensure that schools stay open in adverse winter weather conditions.

David Laws: Our Department’s clear view is that head teachers should keep schools open during adverse weather conditions unless it is really not possible to do so. Our advice to schools makes it clear that they now have a great deal of flexibility to work creatively; for example, bringing together classes with teachers and volunteers working together.

Philip Hollobone: When schools are closed owing to adverse weather conditions, that has a knock-on effect on other public sector provision, as well as on small businesses, as parents who are unable to arrange alternative child care are unable to go to work themselves. For local authority schools, will the Minister make clear whether it is the responsibility of head teachers or the local authority, or a combination of both, that schools remain open?

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s views, and I know that he has taken a keen interest in this issue. It is a responsibility for all individual schools and head teachers to keep their schools open in adverse weather conditions. The Department has issued clear guidance. We are conscious that the unnecessary closure of schools causes disruption to children’s education, and to parents and to the economy.

Chris Ruane: I would like to thank the Minister—[Interruption.] No. 3, Mr Speaker. I was getting carried away.

Mindfulness

Chris Ruane: What assessment he has made of the potential of mindfulness to improve education outcomes.

Elizabeth Truss: The new national curriculum sets out high expectations of what teachers should teach, but gives them much more flexibility over how to do it. Teachers have the freedom to try new approaches and do things differently in a way that benefits students. A longer school day would also enable schools to build confidence and resilience, as well as the core academic skills vital to success.

Mr Speaker: We can now enjoy the full benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s mindfulness.

Chris Ruane: I would like—once again—to thank the Minister for meeting me and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) last Monday to discuss mindfulness in education, and I would also like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the measurement of well-being, but what more can the Minister and her Department do to use mindfulness in education to raise educational attainment and improve student well-being?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for our excellent meeting last week, which I thought was very helpful. I have taken the research he put forward, and
	one of the Department’s education policy advisers is considering it in detail and examining the evidence. I note that 120 schools already participate in mindfulness programmes, and also that several Members of this House are using it to improve their performance.

Nick Gibb: The early-years foundation stage framework makes it clear that by the time children reach the reception class at primary school, the majority of the school day should be spent in teacher-led activities, rather than child-initiated play. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that the framework is correctly interpreted by schools and that we do not continue to see the dominance, particularly in weaker primary schools, of so-called free-flow methods, which delay children being taught to read and entrench the attainment gap between those from wealthy and those from poorer backgrounds?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. High-quality, teacher-led early-years education is vital to closing the gap between those on the lowest and those on the highest incomes. At the moment, when those children arrive at school, there is an 18-month vocabulary gap, which is why we are keen, and Ofsted has confirmed, that although there should be no decision about exactly what type of teaching takes place, it should be of a high quality and it should raise the attainment of children and close that gap before they arrive at school.

Keith Vaz: When the Secretary of State opened the Krishna Avanti Hindu school in Leicester, he saw a room dedicated to yoga, meditation and mindfulness. Unfortunately, it was such a quick visit, he could not take advantage of its benefits. However, there is a proposal to open a secondary school so would the Minister consider opening that school and perhaps making use of the benefits of such a room in any discussions that she or the Secretary of State might have with Ofsted?

Elizabeth Truss: That certainly sounds like an interesting invitation, although I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is very mindful in the Department for Education. There are a number of free schools pioneering these types of approach, and that is one of the reasons we give schools autonomy over how to teach—so that they can explore new and innovative ideas and new ways of delivering high-quality education.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree it is vital that schools have the freedom to choose which external programmes they adopt and have the flexibility to try novel approaches they believe might benefit their pupils overall?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the new national curriculum is much more flexible over how teachers teach. We want to see high attainment and high expectations. Also, a longer school day gives schools more freedom to explore different activities with children to help raise their resilience and confidence.

Sixth-form Colleges (Funding)

Ian Swales: What comparative assessment he has made of funding for sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms.

Matthew Hancock: The Government fund sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms using the same national funding formula—meaning that every child is treated the same—with extra support for the most disadvantaged.

Ian Swales: Most of the post-16 schooling for my constituents takes place at Prior Pursglove sixth-form college. I welcome the correction of the free school meal anomaly from this September, but will the Minister now correct the further anomaly that despite receiving significantly less funding, according to the Association of Colleges, sixth-form colleges are expected to pay VAT, but schools are not?

Matthew Hancock: Sixth-form colleges are funded on the same per pupil formula as every other school. They do pay VAT, and in return for that they have much more flexibility in their own borrowing. I recognise the campaign. Putting this anomaly right would cost £150 million, money that we do not have because of the enormous deficit left by Labour. I recognise the argument, but at present there is no money.

Nicholas Dakin: Given that money is short, why are the Government spending £63 million on around 1,500 students in nine 16 to 18 free schools—£40,000 per student—while cutting the money going to the 156,000 students in sixth-form colleges?

Matthew Hancock: The resource spending that supports sixth-formers is exactly the same per student in free schools, sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms. We have a national funding formula. Before this Government came to office, we did not have a national funding formula; we had different funding for different pupils. We think it is fairer to have the same funding per pupil for all students, and that is what we are doing.

Jonathan Djanogly: The funding differential is being accentuated by very significant differences in funding grant around the country, negatively affecting the f40 authorities generally and the Cambridgeshire authority more than any other. How is my hon. Friend planning to put this right?

Matthew Hancock: That is exactly the sort of anomaly that we have put right by making sure that resource funding is exactly the same per student for 16 to 18-year-olds, no matter what type of institution or where in the country.

Fiona Mactaggart: One of the reasons for differential funding has been students who have experienced less education before they get to the sixth form than other students, perhaps because of illness, absence from school or being refugees, for example. The changes in funding for 18-year-olds in further education are hitting those people. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Matthew Hancock: As part of the per pupil funding, there is extra support for the most disadvantaged—for instance, those with learning difficulties or those who are care leavers. On the changes to funding for 18-year-olds, the evidence is clear that they are on average no more disadvantaged than the totality of 16 to 18-year-olds.

Academies and Free Schools (Performance)

Rob Wilson: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of pupils in academies and free schools.

John Howell: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of pupils in academies and free schools.

Michael Gove: Results continue to improve more quickly in sponsored academies than in local authority maintained schools, at both primary and secondary level. Converter academies continue to outperform other schools and to achieve better inspection outcomes than maintained schools. Of the first wave of 24 free schools, three quarters have been rated outstanding or good.

Rob Wilson: The introduction of academies, free schools and university technical colleges into challenging areas in my constituency is lifting the performance of all secondary schools in those areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these schools perform well precisely because they have autonomy from local education authority control? Will he condemn any attempt to remove those freedoms?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is right. It is the case that education outcomes are improving in Reading as a result of this Government’s changes. That is why it is so worrying that the spokesman for the Opposition told The Sunday Times this weekend that they would halt the free school programme. It would be a terrible reversal of the improvement in our children’s education.

John Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in academies and free schools make better progress than their peers in local authority maintained schools?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is right. The statistics bear him out. It is important, of course, to acknowledge that across the board our schools are improving—local authority schools, academies and free schools—but it is critically important to recognise at the same time that, particularly for disadvantaged children, academies are seeing fantastic results.

Caroline Lucas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me and the many Brighton teachers who have been in touch with me that all sorts of things affect performance in our schools, including pupil-teacher ratios, selection and financial resources? Following his recent announcement that state schools should be more like private schools, if he will not or cannot even up the resources, will he at least summon up the academic rigour to compare like with like? There is plenty of evidence that state schools outperform private schools in many cases.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and had she been fortunate enough to join me at the London Academy of Excellence last week, she would have seen a free school that is outperforming an independent school. The next time I have the opportunity to visit an outstanding academy or free school, I hope she will come with me to see what the state sector is capable of achieving to outpace and outperform the private sector.

Alison McGovern: The Lyndale school in south Wirral is a very small but excellent school. It is not currently an academy and it is under threat of closure. One of the options for saving it involves it becoming an academy, so if parents and I can find a way to keep the school sustainable, will the Secretary of State stand ready to help us?

Michael Gove: Absolutely; I very much enjoyed visiting the Wirral just two weeks ago, and I will do anything I can to work with the hon. Lady to help the children and teachers in that school.

David Ward: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has read the article in The Times Educational Supplement last week which challenged the PISA evidence about the relationship between greater autonomy and educational improvement.

Michael Gove: I have not caught up with last week’s Times Educational Supplement, but I enjoy reading it and I will look at that article. The evidence from PISA—both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and I agree on this—is very powerful in favour of greater autonomy for schools, but I shall look at any critique of that evidence in order to weigh it appropriately.

Kevin Brennan: Given that he has previously been chastised by the UK Statistics Authority for abusing data, how confident is the Secretary of State that his claims about the improved performance of converter academies will stand up to independent scrutiny in future?

Michael Gove: I rely on the evidence with which I am presented by Ofsted, by league tables and by every possible measure, so I look forward to having the chance, whenever the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me again, to demonstrate how well these schools are doing. However, I note that when he came to the Dispatch Box, he did not disabuse the House of the view that it will have taken following the shadow Secretary of State’s statement to The Sunday Times—that Labour would halt the free school programme. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do so when he has the chance again.

Work Experience

Julie Hilling: What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to work experience on employability.

Matthew Hancock: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to answer this question in conjunction with Question 22. Over half of the—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to be starting to get to grips with parliamentary procedures by now. There is no scope for that grouping and it certainly should not be done on the hoof, as it were. It is a matter of agreement in advance, but the hon. Gentleman will learn and he will know not to make that mistake next time.

Matthew Hancock: I apologise if any mis-communication happened before these questions.
	Over half of employers report that not enough young people leave education with work experience or having developed employability skills.

Julie Hilling: “Businesses and the Government need to put their shoulders to the wheel and get our young people job-ready.” So says the CBI head John Cridland. I absolutely agree, but sadly the Secretary of State does not. Is he proud of his record of scrapping work experience and being in complete disarray on careers guidance?

Matthew Hancock: We encourage, and have not scrapped, work experience. We want more work experience and we are putting policies in place to make that happen. For instance, the new study programmes, which started this September, encourage work experience and an all-round education to help people to acquire the skills they need to succeed.

Rushanara Ali: Barclays’ LifeSkills survey found that nine out of 10 young people believe that work experience should be mandatory, yet the number of schools offering placements for 14 to 16-year-olds in England has dropped by around 15% in the past three years. Instead of failing young people, will the Minister support Labour’s proposals to bring back compulsory work experience for 14 to 16-year-olds? Perhaps he could benefit from it himself.

Matthew Hancock: There never was compulsory work experience; there was compulsory work experience or “work-like activity”. As we know, young people can tell the difference very easily between real work experience and something that was cooked up in order to sound like a good headline.

Vocational Education

Marcus Jones: What progress he has made on improving the quality of vocational education.

Eric Ollerenshaw: What progress he has made on improving the quality of vocational education.

Peter Aldous: What progress he has made on improving the quality of vocational education.

Matthew Hancock: We are making the vocational education system more rigorous and more responsive to employers’ needs, removing thousands of qualifications that are not valued by employers and driving up the quality of apprenticeships.

Marcus Jones: I welcome the introduction of tech levels and the technical baccalaureate, which will provide a gold standard in vocational qualifications, but what is my hon. Friend doing to promote such courses, and to lift the overall standing of vocational qualifications and practical careers in, for instance, engineering and construction?

Matthew Hancock: We have a huge programme of work for that purpose. In my hon. Friend’s own constituency, for example, the number of apprenticeships has risen by 50% since 2010. By promoting tech levels and the technical baccalaureate, we are driving up standards in vocational qualifications, and supporting progression in order to show the value of vocational and technical education and hence increase support for it.

Eric Ollerenshaw: May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about parity of esteem, which has always been the issue when it comes to vocational qualifications? Does the Minister think it is about time that employers associations, industrial associations, and perhaps even local chambers became involved in selling those qualifications?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. Tech levels need to be signed off by employers in order to be recognised by the Department. In the past, there were too many so-called vocational qualifications that did not help people to get on in an occupation. We are changing that by insisting that employers publish support for a qualification before it is recognised by us, so that when people embark on a vocational course they know that they will get something valuable out of it.

Peter Aldous: Lowestoft college is doing excellent work in providing young people with the necessary vocational skills for the many jobs that will be created in the energy sector, but the cut in funding for 18-year-olds will have a significant impact on that work. I should welcome an update from the Minister on what mitigating measures are being introduced.

Matthew Hancock: I strongly support Lowestoft college, and I particularly welcome the fact that the number of apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s constituency has almost doubled since 2010. As he knows, we are looking into the allocations to individual colleges, and also looking into measures to mitigate the effects of the change we have had to make.

Andrew Gwynne: During our last session of Education questions, I asked the Minister about a survey conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, which found that three quarters of young people had not received information about apprenticeships as part of their careers guidance. Does he still stand by the words of the Secretary of State, who said at a meeting of the Select Committee in December that he had no plans to review careers guidance?

Matthew Hancock: If I recall correctly, my right hon. Friend—my boss—said that we would shortly be publishing further statutory guidance, and we will.

Meg Hillier: My Big Career is a charity that provides face-to-face careers advice in Hackney schools, and is already making great strides in improving the present position. It has also uncovered the fact that, as was pointed out by my
	hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), young people are not always pushed enough towards the right vocational training and qualifications. Will the Minister visit Hackney to observe the work that My Big Career is doing in schools, and see for himself the benefit of that face-to-face careers advice?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely: I should love to visit Hackney with the hon. Lady. What is happening there is part of a wider drive to ensure that it is real employers who mentor and support young people and give them inspiration. It is part of a culture change that is starting to come about, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady in that connection.

Gisela Stuart: Vocational education ought to be a genuinely dual system. May I invite the Minister never, ever to utter the sentence “It is for those who cannot attend university”? May I also urge him to realise that it is essential to tie in work experience with vocational training?

Matthew Hancock: I think that our minds are as one on this. I only wish that the hon. Lady had managed to convey the same message to her party’s Front Benchers when they were last in government. We strongly believe that it should become the norm in this country for young people to be able to enter either a university or an apprenticeship, that the choice should be theirs, and that our job is to provide excellent opportunities in both.

Graham Stuart: Last week the Edge Foundation published the results of a survey which showed that just 27% of parents thought that vocational education was a worthwhile route for their children to take. In the light of that, does the Minister agree with me, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), that more needs to be done to promote understanding of the additional rigour that has been brought to vocational qualifications in general, and to apprenticeships in particular, under the present Government?

Matthew Hancock: I think it is not enough simply to exhort that technical and vocational education is important. We have to make sure we show that it is valued, and that it truly is valued by employers in order to change this perceptions gap, but I would also note that on the same day that that report was published evidence was published showing that applications to apprenticeships had gone up sharply again. This shows there is movement in this area—there is a culture change in this country—and support for technical and vocational education is on the rise.

Mathematics and English (Attainment Standards)

Adam Holloway: What steps he is taking to improve standards of attainment in English and mathematics.

Elizabeth Truss: We know that English and maths are vital for young people’s life chances and employment prospects. Maths in particular provides the strongest link to future earnings and we are raising standards in both these subjects. It is good news that a record
	number of students are now taking maths A-level, and by 2020 we want the vast majority of students to be studying maths to 18.

Adam Holloway: What steps can the Minister take to encourage more students in Gravesham, particularly girls, to take up maths?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The key to getting more students, and girls in particular, to take maths is the quality of teaching. That is why we are offering the highest bursaries and scholarships in mathematics, and we are also making it clear to girls and their parents that maths is vital whatever career they want to go into; whether it is fashion of farming, maths is important.

Diane Abbott: Does the Minister accept that when it comes to improving standards of attainment in English and mathematics a strong independent national inspectorate is vital, and that a strong independent national inspectorate has been the anchor of the British school system since the 19th century and the days of Matthew Arnold? Does she further agree that anything that undermines the inspectorate cannot be in the best interests of British schoolchildren?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree that it is very important to have a strong national inspectorate and that is what we have under Sir Michael Wilshaw, and I am working very closely with Ofsted, in particular on maths education, to make sure that we have the highest possible quality teaching going on in our schools. That is why this Government are establishing 30 maths hubs across the country that will look at the best practice in places such as Singapore and Shanghai and make sure that is in our schools.

Mr Speaker: I assume the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) calculated that Question 19 on Ofsted would not be reached. That is not of itself an excuse to shoehorn the matter into a question some considerable number of minutes earlier.

Anne Main: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that one of the best indicators to getting good attainment in maths and English is attendance at school? So what more can be done to ensure communities who do not always have a very good attendance record at school—sometimes the Traveller community, as in my constituency—are encouraged to make sure parents ensure their children attend school in settled fashion?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and under this Government persistent absence has reduced and we have given head teachers and teachers more power to make sure parents are ensuring their children are at school. Furthermore, we are consulting on the rules around the Gypsy-Roma Traveller community to make sure there is every encouragement for all children to get the vital education they need.

Pat Glass: The Government have targets for recruiting teachers of maths and physics, but School Direct in particular is falling well short. What action are the Government going to take to recover recruitment in these specialist subjects?

Elizabeth Truss: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady that we have recruited a record number of physics teachers this year and we have the highest bursaries and scholarships in mathematics and physics. Moreover, we are expanding professional development in maths and physics and technology to make sure all schools have access to the best possible teachers.

Safeguarding Policies (Independent Schools)

Meg Munn: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of safeguarding policies in independent schools; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Timpson: Independent schools must follow the independent school standards and statutory guidance on safeguarding, as well as requirements on vetting checks for staff. The inspection and regulatory system is designed to ensure schools meet these standards and any failure to do so triggers a process designed to bring the school up to standard or ultimately be closed.

Meg Munn: Local safeguarding children boards are reporting increased problems in getting independent schools to co-operate with the requirements set out in guidance to provide information on their policies. Will the Minister look at this, and when does he plan to issue new guidance in relation to education and child protection issues?

Edward Timpson: First, may I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who is not standing again at the next election? Throughout her time in Parliament, she has been a real stalwart and a supporter of children in care, particularly the most vulnerable. I know that many families, not only in Sheffield but across the country, will be grateful for the work she has done. We will issue the updated guidance shortly, and I reassure her that we will look specifically at how we can ensure that the information given to local safeguarding children boards by independent schools is provided properly; that will be made as clear as possible in the guidance that is to follow.

Mr Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). [Interruption.] She has had one go; that is enough. May I say, however, that I echo entirely what the Minister has said? This House is losing far too many outstanding Members, and far too many outstanding female Members.

Tessa Munt: There is a conflict of interest when abuse is alleged in independent and military fee-paying schools, in that the interests of children as possible victims are pitched against those of the schools, which want to protect their reputation in order to maintain fee income. Will the Minister look again at introducing mandatory reporting by staff who become aware of abuse allegations to a designated local authority officer, rather than simply requiring the reporting of abuse to a senior teacher or manager in the school?

Edward Timpson: The Working Together guidance, which was revised in 2013, makes abundantly clear the responsibility of all professionals who work with children to keep them safe. The evidence, internationally and
	from experts such as Eileen Munro, makes it clear that mandatory reporting does not necessarily make children safer and that it can have unintended consequences. We continue to look at the arguments, but at the moment the Government are not convinced that mandatory reporting is the way forward.

Stephen McCabe: What causes the Minister greater concern: the inadequate investigations into historical abuse at those schools and the lack of support for the victims, or the worry that the system he has just outlined is so full of holes that it is still possible for a dedicated abuser to carry on victimising children in those schools?

Edward Timpson: We need to be careful not to conflate the two issues of historical abuse and the robustness of the current system. When there has been abuse in the past, we need to investigate it and take the evidence where it leads. I am clear, however, that the Working Together guidance—along with all the other work we are doing to improve social work practice and to free people working on the front line to spend more time with families rather than sitting behind desks—is the way forward. We are building on the Laming and Munro reviews, and that is being reflected in the response not only that Ofsted is having through its inspections but from front-line practitioners themselves, who can see the sense in what we are doing to ensure that all children are kept safe, whatever the circumstances.

Teaching Profession

Rosie Cooper: What steps his Department is taking to raise the status, professionalism and morale of the teaching profession.

David Laws: Our reforms are making teaching a profession of choice for top graduates. Scholarships and bursaries are attracting the very best, and teaching is now the No. 1 destination for graduates from top universities such as Oxford.

Rosie Cooper: Surveys by YouGov have shown that teacher morale is plummeting under this Government. Why does the Minister think that that is happening?

David Laws: I do not accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation of teaching. If it were accurate, we would not see such huge numbers of people applying to become teachers or such an increase in the average university qualifications that teachers are getting. I would also point out that we now have the most generous system ever for funding disadvantaged young people in schools, which is giving teachers the resources to do their job effectively.

Tony Baldry: Am I correct in thinking that the Government are reforming teachers’ pay so as to give schools greater flexibility to pay the best teachers more and to reward good performance? Could anyone possibly be against teachers having the performance-related pay arrangements that apply in other professions? Can there be any possible justification for teachers taking industrial action in our schools?

David Laws: My right hon. Friend is right to say that we are reforming teachers’ pay. We are ensuring that there are fair increases in their pay in these times of austerity, and that head teachers have the flexibility to reward good teachers, particularly in the most challenging schools. What the position of the other parties is on this matter I could not possibly say.

Simon Wright: The development of a royal college of teaching should rightly be led by teaching professionals, but will the Minister examine which functions from his Department relating to professional matters and standards could transfer to a royal college? Will he consider offering arm’s length financial support to help it get up and running?

David Laws: My hon. Friend rightly says that it would be a positive development if we were to have a royal college of teaching. Our Department is willing to play a constructive role in any discussions about the functions of such a body, which would particularly be in respect of professional development for teachers. We do not believe it would be right for our Department to seek to run such an organisation; we would want it to be independent of the Department for Education, but we are willing to do all we can to support such an initiative.

Young Carers

Chloe Smith: What steps he is taking to improve support for young carers.

Edward Timpson: On 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education issued a written ministerial statement announcing an amendment to the Children and Families Bill. For the first time, all young carers will have the right to an assessment of their needs for support, as part of the consideration of the needs of the whole family. This amendment will help achieve our aim of protecting young people from excessive or inappropriate caring roles.

Chloe Smith: I very much welcome those measures in the Children and Families Bill. I will meet Norfolk Young Carers Forum next week to, “Get it right in education”, as the forum puts it. These young carers tell me that there needs to be more awareness of young carers at schools and colleges, and in the workplace. What message would the Minister send the NYCF?

Edward Timpson: I commend my hon. Friend for taking up the challenge on behalf of young carers in her constituency. I know they have been particularly active in helping to design and commission many of the services across the country for young carers. To help raise awareness and to encourage good practice in schools, we are working with the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to provide teachers with the tools—the training and guidance—they need to recognise and support young carers as early as possible.

Community Primary Schools

Andy Slaughter: How many applications for academy status from community primary schools have been declined by his Department. [Official Report, 28 February 2014, Vol. 576, c. 1MC.]

Michael Gove: Eighty.

Andy Slaughter: I thank the Secretary of State for that succinct answer. The reason I ask is that tonight Hammersmith and Fulham’s Conservative council is set to vote for the closure of Sulivan primary school in Fulham, which is rated in the top 2% in the country, in order to give its site to a free school. Sulivan’s last hope is the Secretary of State, so will he agree with the London Diocesan Board for Schools, which wants to take Sulivan into its family of schools as an academy, that it is
	“unusual to close successful schools with growing rolls”,
	and save Sulivan school?

Michael Gove: I admire good local authorities, and Hammersmith and Fulham’s is one of the best, so the decisions it quite properly takes outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) I would entirely support. As for creating a free school in Hammersmith and Fulham, why should a former public schoolboy such as the hon. Gentleman, who benefited from the independence of a great school such as Latymer upper, wish to deny such high standards to others? Is it that the hypocrisy—forgive me, the double standards—of the Labour Front-Bench team now extends to the Back Benchers, too?

Academies and Free Schools (Accountability)

Duncan Hames: What steps he is taking to ensure that academies and free schools are accountable for their leadership and corporate governance.

David Laws: Academies and free schools are subject to the same rigorous Ofsted inspection framework as maintained schools. Ofsted inspectors examine the impact of leaders at all levels and evaluate how effectively the school is governed and managed. The Education Funding Agency and our Department are also responsible for the oversight of academies and the free schools programme.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for that response. Where both teaching staff and Ofsted, through these inspections, raise concerns about the management or governance of an academy or free school, what means are available to them to secure any necessary changes to both procedures and personnel?

David Laws: The first thing staff and others should do in those circumstances is to raise their concerns with the governing body. If they are not satisfied with that, they should not hesitate to raise concerns with either the EFA or our Department. We always take such matters extremely seriously. If my hon. Friend has any concerns about any cases in his constituency, he should feel free to raise them with me or other Ministers.

John Woodcock: Will the Minister assure the House that when a school that is currently under local authority control has more than one option for moving to academy status, that school and the community will have a genuine choice about which option to take?

David Laws: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will seriously consider the local authority’s view, but we will ensure that the best possible sponsor is in place, and that is not always the sponsor identified by the local authority, especially if the authority itself has failed over a long period to raise standards in that school.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the Minister think that spending £1 million on a free school for 30 children in my constituency is good value for money when we have surplus places and really good local schools that are crying out for investment?

David Laws: Free schools are being targeted at areas of basic need and where standards are low. We are trying to ensure that the free schools programme complements the Government’s work to provide school places and raise standards throughout the country.

Developing Character and Resilience in Young People

Damian Hinds: What assessment he has made of the potential role of schools in building character and resilience in young people.

Edward Timpson: Schools play an important role in providing character-building activities for their pupils. Sports clubs, orchestras and choirs, school plays, cadet forces and debating competitions all help to build character and give children opportunities to flourish. Schools are best placed to determine the needs of their pupils and how best to meet them.

Damian Hinds: Given that welcome emphasis on character building for all, may I commend to the Minister—and subtly plug—a report out tomorrow on character and resilience by the all-party group on social mobility? Will he consider more ways to develop these crucial traits throughout childhood, and in and out of school?

Mr Speaker: Not that subtly.

Edward Timpson: The report has clearly moved to the top of my reading list. I will read it carefully and look at some of the lessons that we can learn from my hon. Friend’s work, to which I pay tribute. We have already spoken about the role that cadet forces can play in state schools, and we are working with the Ministry of Defence to improve that role. We are also removing unnecessary health and safety rules that prevent children from going on expeditions and seeking adventures, which I hope that the whole House will applaud.

Kerry McCarthy: Of course one of the ways of building resilience among pupils would be to introduce compulsory sex and relationships education. Fahma Mohamed, a 17-year-old student from Bristol, is spearheading a national campaign to end female genital mutilation. I understand that she has written to the Secretary of State to ask if he is prepared to meet her. Her petition has already attracted 167,000 signatures. Will the Minister ask his colleague whether he is prepared to meet Fahma, who is doing brilliant work through the campaign?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the answer is yes.

Leadership in Schools

Derek Twigg: What recent discussions he has had with the head of Ofsted on leadership in schools.

Michael Gove: Leadership and management are integral to the success of a school and, as such, feature regularly in my discussions with Her Majesty’s chief inspector.

Derek Twigg: What was it that brought the Secretary of State to the view that it was time to “refresh” the person in charge of Ofsted, Baroness Morgan, and to bring in a fresh perspective? What specifically concerned him about performance on school improvement to lead him to that conclusion?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to do in this House what I have done on other platforms and underline my debt to Baroness Morgan, who has led the Ofsted board in a superlative fashion. However, it is good corporate practice to ensure that the chair of any body—whether the Surrey Heath Conservative association or Ofsted—is refreshed from time to time.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: I had the opportunity last week to congratulate the nation’s teachers on the fantastic GCSE performance recorded in our league tables, which show that the number of students being educated in schools below floor standards at secondary level has diminished dramatically under this Government. I would like to take the opportunity once more to thank the nation’s teachers for the superb work that they do.

Annette Brooke: I echo the Secretary of State’s comment.
	Following a unilateral decision by an academy upper school in my constituency to change the age of transfer from 13 to 11, assuming that the local authorities carry out a feasibility study and full consultation, and demonstrate that pupil outcomes will be improved, what assistance can the Government give towards capital expenditure for any reorganisation of the feeder schools, as that clearly is not in any plans?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend raises a very specific case, although I understand why she has brought it to my attention. I hope that we will have the opportunity to talk afterwards so that I can ensure that the Dorset local authority is provided with all the support it needs to make sure that children’s educational standards improve.

Tristram Hunt: As my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) have shown, the Opposition recognise the essential role that Ofsted plays in driving up standards in schools. I want to place on the record our continued support for Sir Michael Wilshaw. However, since we last met, the Secretary of State has, in the words of Sir Michael,
	unleashed a “smear campaign” against the chief inspector. He has also sacked Baroness Morgan as chair of Ofsted, despite the fact that the Minister for Schools thinks that she has done a “fantastic job”. Why is the Secretary of State so intent on undermining England’s independent school inspectorate system?

Michael Gove: I am sure that the chief inspector will be touched to hear the hon. Gentleman’s words of support, but I think that he will also be disturbed to hear that he is alleged to have uttered words that he did not utter. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has sallied forth without being in secure possession of the facts. It has been the case beforehand that his facts have been wrong about the situation in the South Leeds academy, and it has been the case that his facts have been wrong, on broadcast, about the number of unqualified teachers in our schools. His facts are wrong again in the allegations he makes about the chief inspector. I hope that he will take this opportunity to ensure that the House knows that he has unfairly and wrongly put words in the chief inspector’s mouth that he did not utter.

Tristram Hunt: We see that the Secretary of State has refused to condemn the campaign against the chief inspector. Is not the truth of the matter this: Ofsted is inspecting his free schools without fear or favour, and he does not like it? The chief inspector wants to inspect academy chains, and he does not like it. On Friday the Al-Madinah secondary school closed, and on Sunday we learned of a new Ofsted purge. Surely the Secretary of State should focus on raising standards, not politicising our school inspectorate system.

Michael Gove: If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously, he must pay close attention to the facts. The facts are these: I have been zealous in ensuring that we apply a tighter and more rigorous inspection framework to all schools—free schools, academies and maintained schools—and in so doing I appointed Sir Michael Wilshaw and I appointed Sally Morgan. I have been the person who has been leading change in our schools. I have been the person who has been insistent that we hold our education system to the highest standards. I am the person now demanding once again that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his earlier statement when he put words into the mouth of Sir Michael Wilshaw that he did not utter. If he does not, we will draw the appropriate conclusion, as the New Statesman already has, which is that his policies are both “timid” and “incoherent”.

Andrew Rosindell: I recently visited Havering college in my constituency and Barking and Dagenham college just outside it. The Secretary of State will be pleased to know that we have excellent standards there, but one thing that is lacking is the importance of teaching our young people about the British constitution, our history, political affairs and so on. What do the Government intend to do to ensure greater awareness of those subjects among young people?

Elizabeth Truss: From September, the new history curriculum will ensure that children understand the history of these islands as well as a coherent chronological
	narrative. In citizenship, they will learn about the United Kingdom’s constitution, about the precious liberties enjoyed by citizens of our country and about their role as citizens and how they can participate.

Gavin Shuker: Given the well documented problems that whistle- blowers encountered in reporting their experiences at Barnfield Federation to the Department for Education, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing all inquiry reports in full, including all the versions that have circulated outside the Departments involved?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. As we both know, very serious allegations have been made in connection with the Barnfield Federation. They are currently being investigated, and nothing I say, do or publish should prejudice those investigations. However, as has always been the case, whenever there is information that it is right we should share with those affected and with the public, we will share it in due course.

Matthew Offord: What action is the Minister taking to support parents and children in deprived areas, particular those in temporary accommodation and without access to IT facilities, to access and retain permanent school places, and is he willing to look at the system in place at Barnfield primary school in my constituency, with a view to seeing how the Government might encourage effective support in other schools?

David Laws: I would be delighted to look at the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency to see what we can learn from it. During this Parliament we have more than doubled the capital budget for basic need compared with the budget under the previous Labour Government, and that is helping us to deal with such pressures across the country.

Meg Munn: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier kind comments, and the Children’s Minister for the same. Given such warmth towards me today, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me why, given that in 2007 the Prime Minister spoke of a new generation of Co-operative schools and said that they had been welcomed across the board, not one of the Ministers will agree to meet me to discuss these issues and the Bill that I put forward which would put Co-operative schools on a firmer footing.

Michael Gove: Any opportunity to spend time with the hon. Lady is one that I would rush to take. The cause of the Co-operative movement is very close to my heart, so I would be delighted to talk to her, perhaps over a cup of tea, before too long.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State make it 100% clear that he is totally supportive of teachers who want to use their judgment and common sense to apply discipline and punishments that are sensible and proportionate?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. A third of teachers do not feel they know exactly which sanctions they are able to use. That is why the Secretary of State outlined sanctions such as writing lines, running around the school playing field and picking up litter, so that proper discipline can be imposed. It is vital that students are able to learn and that there is an end to low-level disruption in the classroom.

Diana Johnson: The Facebook drinking game Neknomination has gone viral, and very sadly young people have died as a result. What role do schools have in building resilience in our young people to resist peer pressure?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Lady is right to be concerned about some of the ever-changing risks, as well as opportunities, for young people through the internet. That is why we have brought in the teaching of online safety at every key stage so that from the earliest opportunity children are getting the benefit of sound advice. It is also important that parents play their role so that children are getting a consistent message both at school and at home.

Mike Thornton: The 17.5% cuts in spending for 18-plus learning announced last year by the Education Funding Agency, the changes in the 16-to-19 funding formula and the unfair treatment of sixth-form colleges compared with schools regarding VAT have put sixth-form colleges under serious strain, with cuts to courses and staff. Will the Minister, or even the Secretary of State, meet me and the principal of the excellent Barton Peveril college in Eastleigh to discuss the impact of these cuts?

Matthew Hancock: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the principal of his local sixth-form college to discuss how to make sure that in these tight spending times, which we all know exist, sixth-form colleges can maximise the flexibilities at their command in order to continue the excellent education that most deliver.

Andrew McDonald: Many children who are entitled to free school meals do not receive that benefit, often because parental embarrassment or a lack of English mean that the application is not made. Will the Minister ensure that those children are passported through on the basis of benefit assessments already made in respect of those families?

David Laws: This is a very important issue, because take-up of free school meals is quite low in some parts of the country. We are working with local authorities to improve the identification of the children who are so entitled, with some considerable success. As we introduce universal infant free meals, we will also look at ways in which we can make this more automatic for all the pupils who are entitled to extra funding for free school meals and the pupil premium.

Gordon Henderson: I have recently had to deal with a number of bullying cases in my local schools. The root cause of that bullying appears to be very poor
	discipline. Too often, this indiscipline is caused not by bad teaching but by bad parenting. Will my right hon. Friend do something to improve the situation?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that parents and teachers need to work together in order to ensure very high standards of behaviour. It is often the case that what happens before children ever attend school—in the earliest years—matters. That is why the programme of work that the Government are undertaking, led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Communities and Local Government to help troubled families is so important.

Alex Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State confirm his support for the ban on smoking in cars with children present?

Michael Gove: Absolutely.

Greg Mulholland: University technical colleges are an increasingly important and positive part of our education system. Do Ministers share my dismay that, despite the Baker Dearing Trust making it very clear that one would be welcome in Leeds, Leeds city council refused to put one together for the important West Park centre site, which is now a pile of rubble?

Michael Gove: I am genuinely sorry to hear that and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman in order to make sure that opportunities for children in Leeds are not thwarted by the Labour council.

Pat Glass: Contrary to the information given earlier, the Secretary of State is well aware that the attainment gap between the wealthiest and the poorest children in this country grew in every region apart from London last year. Does he accept any responsibility for that?

Michael Gove: I absolutely do, but I think the hon. Lady is in error. As has been pointed out by Dr Becky Francis, among others, the attainment gap actually narrowed in primary schools, where our reforms have had more of an opportunity to have an effect on a percentage of children’s lives. At secondary level, of course the problem remains. That is why it is so disappointing that the Labour party is opposed to initiatives such as the free schools programme, which Andrew Adonis has greeted so warmly, but which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) would halt.

Chris Skidmore: I and parents, teachers and local councils in my constituency are supporting a bid for a studio school at the site of the Grange school in Warmley. Will departmental representatives agree to meet me and a delegation to discuss the bid, which will be absolutely vital for raising standards in my constituency?

Michael Gove: I would be delighted to do everything I can to support that bid, not least given the fact that new school provision, studio schools and free schools are threatened by the Labour party’s ideological opposition to new provision.

John Woodcock: At a time when there is overwhelming evidence about the value of physical activity to improving health outcomes and learning in classrooms, why on earth is the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), defending the right of teachers to use running around the playground as a punishment, rather than using the bully pulpit of the Dispatch Box to condemn such outmoded practices?

Michael Gove: As a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt, I am happy to use whatever bully pulpits are available. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on securing a sports premium in our primary schools, which ensures that more physical activity is available than ever before. I also thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for the work he has undertaken with me to bring an independent school into the state sector—using the free school programme—in order to give more children opportunities I am afraid his Front-Bench colleagues would, for ideological reasons, deny them. He is a good Blairite; they are the bad ones.

Mark Pritchard: School holidays are an important time when families can spend time together, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between legitimate travel companies making a profit and profiteering?

Michael Gove: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very acute point. One of the flexibilities we have given—not least to academies and free schools—is the ability to vary school holidays in order to make sure that holidays can be cheaper and parents can take them off-peak. That is another school freedom that, for ideological reasons, I am afraid Labour Front Benchers would deny. I do not understand why they are so keen to make holidays more expensive for hard-working families.

Nicholas Dakin: I am rather perplexed. Are Government Front Benchers able to help me? A written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said that there was no idea how much it cost to create 138 new sixth forms in schools. Given that we want value for money, I found that very difficult to understand.

Matthew Hancock: The point I was making is that the amount of resource spending for each pupil aged 16 to 19 is the same, with an additional amount for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those studying more high-cost programmes like engineering, our support for which is vital for our national economy.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State will be aware of the sentence handed out in Amersham Crown court last week to the former head teacher of the Caldicott preparatory school after years of abuse of children in his care. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to my constituent Mr Tom Perry, who was brave enough to speak out about his own abuse? Will he agree to meet Mr Perry and me to discuss the possibility of mandatory reporting, as Mr Perry believes it would better protect our children in the future?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and Mr Perry for their leadership on this issue. I would like to invite him to the Department to discuss exactly what we can do in the future to ensure that this sort of horrific abuse does not happen again.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.

Flooding

Maria Eagle: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement on the Government’s recent response to the flooding in Somerset, and to clarify his comments this weekend accusing the Environment Agency of giving poor advice.

Eric Pickles: As evident from the dark skies outside, we continue to face extraordinary and sustained wet weather. Cobra has met every day since my oral statement on Thursday, with all Departments working closely together, including my comrades from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We have made it clear again that every resource is available to local communities affected. We will keep providing whatever immediate practical support and assistance is needed, whether extra pumps and sandbags, military support on the ground, or emergency funds from the severe weather assistance fund for local councils.
	The Somerset moors and levels have been some of the areas hardest hit by the weather, with 65 million cubic metres of floodwater on the land. The Rivers Tone and Parrett have been particularly affected by the continuous rainfall, leading to heightened river levels. In total, people in 150 properties across the Somerset levels, where there is a threat of severe flooding, have been advised to leave their homes. A rest centre has been established in Bridgwater. Military personnel have been tasked to work alongside local authorities, and are currently filling sandbags for deployment. Pumping continues, but it is a challenge to keep at the correct pace with the inflow from the latest rainfall, and levels are increasing in some areas. It is likely to take weeks to remove the sheer volume of floodwater, once there is a significant break in the weather.
	Across the Thames valley and Surrey, the River Thames is rising and bursting its banks at certain locations. A sandbag programme is in place at key points of vulnerability. A multi-agency gold command has been set up in Croydon to co-ordinate the response locally, and a major incident has been declared. There is a high risk that the Thames, the Severn and the Wye will flood in the middle of next week. Local residents are actively engaged in planning and preparation.
	As I told the House on Thursday, I commend the hard work of the emergency services, local authorities, the armed services and the staff of the Environment Agency on the ground. As I have said, there are lessons to be learned, including about its policy on dredging and how its £1.2 billion budget is spent.
	I note that the issue of international development funding was touched on over the weekend. Let me say this: just as it is a false choice to cast town versus country, it is also wrong to pit helping the victims of flooding at home against helping those suffering abroad. We can and should do both—to help the plight of those facing the awfulness of flooded homes in Britain, just as we take action to help malnourished children dying from dirty water abroad. But I believe that taxpayers’ money should be well spent, and this applies just as much to quangos as it does to the international aid
	budget. By spending money wisely, we can better meet our moral obligations, first to Britain and then to the world, but the first and primary obligation of Her Majesty’s Government is the defence of the realm—urban and rural, city and county—and that is exactly what we are doing.

Maria Eagle: I thank the Secretary of State for his update.
	I have no doubt that those who are being affected by the severe flooding in Somerset and now in the Thames valley welcome the assistance that they are now receiving. It is a considerable relief to those who are living and farming on the Somerset levels that the Army has been made available to assist in the efforts to protect homes, farms and other businesses. That news, combined with the efforts of the fire and rescue services, the police, Environment Agency staff and the many volunteers, shows that there is finally a concerted effort to respond to the floods.
	Does the Secretary of State understand people’s anger and frustration that it took so long for the Government to organise that level of response, considering that many of them have been dealing with rising water levels since before Christmas? Will he ensure that it does not take so long to help those in the Thames valley who face flooding today? Why did the Prime Minister remain so disengaged from what was clearly a worsening crisis for so long, in sharp contrast to his predecessor in 2007? What lessons have been learned to ensure that we never again see flooded communities left abandoned for weeks? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the same level of assistance will be made available to those in Berkshire and Surrey, where severe flood warnings are in place?
	Will the Secretary of State provide an update on the work to restore vital rail connectivity to Devon and Cornwall? Have Ministers formally asked Network Rail to present options for a long-term solution to the vulnerability of the line, including the option of re-routing?
	On the Environment Agency, does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that
	“This is a time for everyone to get on with the jobs that they have… This is not the time to change personnel, this is the time to get on and do everything we can to help people. I back the Environment Agency. I back the work they are doing.”?
	If so, why did the Secretary of State go to such lengths yesterday to give the opposite impression as he toured the TV studios? Does he believe that
	“the Environment Agency has been remarkably good in giving good, accurate information”?
	Those are the words that he used on “The World at One” last Wednesday. Will he explain what changed his mind about the quality of the advice from the Environment Agency in the following 48 hours, other than the fact that he spotted a convenient scapegoat to distract attention from the Government’s failure?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Prime Minister has been unable to deny that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been forced to write a letter objecting to the attack on one of his Department’s agencies by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government? Does he accept, in hindsight, that it was wrong to launch such a direct attack on the staff of the Environment Agency,
	and will he take this opportunity to apologise? Does he really believe that the cut of £97 million or 17% in real terms to the annual funding of the Environment Agency, which was required by Ministers, did not impact on the agency’s ability to prevent the flooding that we have seen?
	In the House last Thursday, I asked the Secretary of State about the Pitt review, which was commissioned by the last Government after the 2007 floods. He was unable to answer my questions and instead commented that,
	“The hon. Lady asked why we have not updated the Pitt review. She will recall that we set up the Flood Forecasting Centre… Perhaps she should spend a little less time in the television studios and more time with Google.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 447.]
	Of course, a quick search using Google would have informed the right hon. Gentleman that the Flood Forecasting Centre was set up by the previous Government and opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in 2009. I hope that he is better informed today.
	Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government stopped producing progress reports on the implementation of the 92 recommendations of the Pitt review in January 2012, despite 46 of them being labelled “on-going”? Is it still the case that none of the recommendations under
	“Knowing where and when it will flood”
	have been implemented in full? What has happened to the six recommendations on reducing the risk of flooding, the 10 on being rescued and cared for during an emergency and the seven on maintaining power supplies that had not been implemented in full? How many of those have still not been completed by Ministers? Will he explain why the Government axed the Cabinet Committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forum, both of which were recommended in the Pitt review and established by the last Government? Finally, will the Secretary of State reconsider his refusal to agree to our request that regular progress reports on the implementation of the Pitt review be restarted? Will he commit to presenting the first update to the House by the end of this month?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady seems to be obsessed by process. We are much more concerned with making a concerted effort to deal with the problem of flooding.
	On readiness, we understand that as the week progresses, there will be increased flooding along the Thames valley. The substantial gravel layers in the valley will make it more difficult to put barriers up. Nevertheless, we have continued to ensure that demountables are available and the enormous help from the military will continue. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] Forgive me, but I thought that I was answering about flooding, not some peculiar problem with regard to procedure.
	Today I was in Croydon looking at a water station that ensures there is clean water for 47,000 properties. I looked at the magnificent work of the Environment Agency and of local gold command, which is putting together a team for action to ensure that properties are not flooded and that clean water is available.
	On the Environment Agency, it is entirely wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest for one moment that I have issued even the slightest criticism of its marvellous work force. My admiration for the work of the Environment Agency exceeds no one, and I believe it is time for us all to start to work together, not to make silly party political points. I am confident that with the help of the Environment Agency, the armed forces and the good work of local councils, that is exactly what we will do.

Anne McIntosh: I believe that we need a period of calm in the House because those who have been flooded, and those who are on the verge of being flooded, look to us to give some leadership. May we look at what is required to be done now in terms of clean water and sanitation to avoid a public health issue for those who have been unable to use their own facilities for a period of time? I welcome what the Prime Minister told the House last week, which was that everything that has happened under that Government, this Government, or any Government, will be looked at anew. We need leadership; the Environment Agency will do whatever its political masters ask it to do, and I think it has done that to the best of its ability. In future we can look at what lessons can be learned from this episode, but we are in the middle of an emergency and must allow the emergency services, including the Environment Agency, to do their work.

Eric Pickles: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Her knowledge of matters relating to the environment, and particularly flooding because of the peculiar circumstances of her own constituency, is considerable. She is absolutely right, and it is a matter of some priority to ensure that those strategic sites, pumping stations, gas stations and those relating to electricity, are protected and can withstand the rigours of this terrible weather.

Ben Bradshaw: I cannot remember a more complacent or inadequate response from a Cabinet Minister to a serious matter in this House. Last year, after last winter’s floods and the travel disruption in the south-west, the Government announced £31 million of new money for improved rail resilience in the south-west. That money has still not materialised. Why should anybody believe any of the new promises the Secretary of State is making when he has failed to deliver on any of them in the past?

Eric Pickles: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to resort to petty insults across the Chamber. There are people right now risking their lives and working on the railways to get them running and get a proper price worked out, and frankly, to play this rather pathetic game of who is to blame—[Interruption.] There will be a time when we will look closely into the causes of the floods and the reaction of the Government, but right now we should get on with the job.

David Heath: On behalf of the people of Somerset may I say a big thank you to all those who have been working in the here and now, dealing with our emergency? I particularly welcome some of the biggest pumps that I have ever seen arriving on the levels over the weekend. There will come a time when we have to look at the emergency response, and
	also at long-term policies and the advice that we in Somerset have given to successive Governments and agencies over 20 years. Will the Secretary of State look at the funding stream available to local authorities, not just to deal with emergencies but to enable us to maintain these delicate structures far into the future?

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is perhaps good to make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) cannot be with us today—he is down there dealing with flooding matters. I am sure he would have made similar points.
	I felt it was about time somebody apologised to the people of Somerset and I was happy to do so. The Prime Minister has endorsed that apology. It is true that the advice was solidly given, and that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last autumn started some preliminary dredging on the two rivers. That was due to start up again, and it will do so, but in a more enhanced role. That decision was taken by the wisdom of the Secretary of State.

Joan Walley: Today we have had a summary of the short-term, overdue measures that the Government are taking, but what about the long-term implications? What about climate change? Will Cobra, when it meets, look not only at adaptation, but at mitigation? Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Chancellor and ensure that we implement the fourth carbon budget review?

Eric Pickles: Of course, we take climate change into consideration in all the modelling we do with regard to flooding, but the hon. Lady will accept that the weather patterns we have had have been truly remarkable—nothing like them have been seen since the latter part of the 18th century. I will ensure that her remarks on flooding are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

John Redwood: As the two main A roads from my constituency into Reading have been closed by floods, and as many homes, businesses and gardens have been inundated, sometimes with foul as well as surface water, will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in future, the £1,200 million budget and the near £100 million cash that the Environment Agency started the year with will be available for schemes that I and others recommend which could stop that water in future? Is it not about time that we had the promise of some action from the Environment Agency?

Eric Pickles: We need to deal with the short-term effects of the floods given what is likely to happen over the next few weeks, but my right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point—it is not just the size of the Environment Agency budget, but what it does with it and what priorities it has. I am sure that, as the water recedes, there will be a lot of discussion between the Government and the Environment Agency.

Peter Hain: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that, instead of engaging in this arrogant bluster, he answers the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) from the Opposition Front Bench, and by colleagues who, along with their constituents, have
	experienced the terrible impacts of the flooding? He ought to apologise instead of continuously passing the buck and saying that it is everybody else’s responsibility but not the Government’s.

Eric Pickles: For me, sorry is not the hardest word. I have been criticised for saying sorry to the people of Somerset, and the Prime Minister has said sorry to them. The problem with Labour Members, who talk of hubris and arrogance, is that they are never prepared to admit that they have done anything wrong and go around defending bad practice. The Government are prepared to say that we got it wrong, along with the Environment Agency, with regard to dredging. Had it not been for the campaigning efforts of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that dredging would not have started.

Cheryl Gillan: We have had some flooding in Old Amersham and Chalfont St Peter. I praise the fire service and the local authorities, and the Environment Agency and its subcontractors, which have been pumping and saving buildings from flooding by the River Misbourne. Will the Secretary of State look very carefully at the Government’s spending priorities? I believe that the Government should protect our existing transport infrastructure, our towns and our countryside before spending money on new shiny projects that have a disgraceful cost-benefit ratio compared with the 1:8 cost- benefit ratio imposed on the Environment Agency?

Eric Pickles: The House has grown to appreciate my right hon. Friend’s doughty defence of her constituents and her dislike of high-speed rail. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has just come back from Marlowe, where he examined the state of preparedness, and he reports the fantastic work of local firefighters, working alongside Environment Agency staff and the local police. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be calling him very soon to offer them some moral support.

John McDonnell: I met Fire Brigade Union representatives, representing firefighters in the south-west, last week, and they report that firefighters are working extremely hard for long hours. I pay tribute to them. But they asked me to make the point that they are being hampered by job cuts—2,000 firefighters over the last 18 months. In addition, although there has been an improvement in equipment, the Government still have not decided to establish a statutory duty on fire authorities to deal with flooding, which would protect investment in equipment in the future.

Eric Pickles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also like to thank the thousands of retained firefighters for working hard on behalf of their local communities. I, too, had the opportunity to speak to firefighters this morning in Croydon. I was remarkably impressed by their dedication, hard work, cheerfulness and adaptability in ensuring that an important water pumping station remains open. We will ensure that firefighters have the best possible equipment to deal with this issue, and we
	have a strategic reserve of high-volume pumps that are being used extensively throughout the Thames valley and the Somerset levels.

Richard Benyon: I would like to use this time to talk about Somerset and the decision that I took there, but I feel I must talk about my constituents, many of whom have had an utterly miserable week and have tough times ahead. Rivers such as the River Kennet, which I have known for all my 53 years, have never been dredged and never should be dredged, because it would mean that the water would flow very fast through my constituency and end up in Reading and beyond. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we give false hope to certain communities if the question comes down to the binary decision—to dredge or not to dredge? Getting it right has to be right for that catchment.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend was a very distinguished environment Minister and he is 100% correct. What works in the Somerset levels might not be appropriate elsewhere. I represent an Essex constituency where several fields are regularly flooded, offering enormous protection to communities along the coast. His point about the Kennet is correct. It is the same problem when pumping out—the need to ensure that the flow is not so fast that it just creates additional flooding.
	I do not think that my hon. Friend made a bad decision: I think that I would have made the same decision on the information that was available. He should not ascribe any blame to himself.

Caroline Lucas: I am glad that the Secretary of State is in a mood for apologies, because he might like to apologise to the Environment Agency, instead of engaging in a blame game that helps nobody. Sustainable urban drainage systems can play a key role in managing surface water flooding, and the Government’s statement that they will implement schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 for new housing developments is long overdue. Does he agree that people in existing housing should benefit from the cost-effective flood protection provided by sustainable urban drainage schemes, and will he agree to a comprehensive retrofit programme so that they can do so?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady’s question is based on a false premise. I have not criticised the Environment Agency, whose staff are doing an excellent job. Merely expressing doubts about one aspect of the agency’s approach in the Somerset levels hardly qualifies as a criticism. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) informs me that the very regulations that she seeks will be laid in April, and I hope that she will volunteer to serve on the relevant Delegated Legislation Committee.

Stephen Gilbert: Cornwall faces a repair bill in the tens of millions of pounds, and it will take months to put right the damage that the storms have caused. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when claims are made under the Bellwin scheme, they will be expedited as quickly as possible?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the battering that the coast of Cornwall has received. The decision I announced last week on the changes to the Bellwin formula—the first time in 30 years that we have changed the threshold—was made specifically to help Cornwall. I look forward to working with him and the county council to ensure it is compensated for the enormous effort it has put in.

Chris Ruane: For every £1 spent on flood defence, there is an £8 return. In the last year of the Labour Government, capital flood defence spending was £371 million. The following year, it was cut by this Government by £87 million, then £115 million, £94 million, £53 million and £35 million. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Rhyl, St Asaph, Somerset levels, Dawlish and the Thames valley for the £400 million of costly capital cuts that have totally backfired and will cost this country billions?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady—[Laughter.] I would never mistake the hon. Gentleman for a lady. I am so sorry.
	We need to look at the straightforward arithmetic. In their last five years the Labour Government spent £2.7 billion. We will be spending £3.1 billion—a lot more money. They had added to it in 2007, so theirs is a boosted figure that is well below ours.

David Davis: The misery of the current floods is confined to one region of the country, but the fear of flooding extends to all regions of the country, particularly those that have suffered floods before. My right hon. Friend is right to commend and make the most of the emergency services and the help being given by them. It is, however, undoubtedly true that the best way to deal with flooding is prevention, not cure. For example, it will cost £200 million to £300 million to reinstall the Humber defences. That sounds like a lot of money until the day after a storm surge or major flood, so will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Treasury that, unlike the previous Government, it should not go in for being penny wise and pound foolish?

Eric Pickles: I am very familiar with the area to which my right hon. Friend refers, which has a sizeable proportion of holdings below sea level. I know the nature of the river and the historic floods that have taken place around Beverley and across to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) towards York. People have suffered from flooding there in the past and he is right that there is a fear of floods. For years afterwards, people who have been flooded worry every time it rains. It is almost like being burgled: it is not just cleaning up the mess, but the psychological damage. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that residents are kept dry and that we do all we can to alleviate flooding. As my right hon. Friend rightly points out, we were playing, very heavily, catch-up.

John Cryer: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and tell us what assessment he has
	made of making flood attendance a statutory duty on fire services? If he has not made that assessment, will he do so and then report back to the House?

Eric Pickles: That is contained within the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, with the local resilience forum. With enormous respect to the hon. Gentleman, I saw in Croydon what I have seen at all major incidents: a number of services working together very well. The local resilience forum, as I saw today in Croydon, is an exemplar of the way to do things. Making this a statutory duty would not help anything and would not make a single community safer.

Nicholas Soames: As my right hon. Friend wisely reflected, it is the exceptional weather that is responsible for flooding. Does he agree that, in the end, the forces of unstoppable nature humble us all, as we have faced the wettest January since 1767? As he rightly says, the time for review will come later, but does he agree that one lesson, as outlined wisely by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), is that land management needs to be looked at again in the different areas where floods have taken place?

Eric Pickles: As always, my right hon. Friend is correct. We cannot have conventional orthodoxy, and neither should we replace one inflexible orthodoxy with another. We have only to stand close to these rivers, some of which were previously gentle and meandering, or to see that monstrous gap in Brunel’s railway to see the sheer strength of nature. Conventional orthodoxy has to be re-examined, and instead we need bespoke solutions for each area of the country.

Angela Smith: When he got the job, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs removed from his Department’s list of priorities an intention
	“to prepare for and manage risk from flood and other environmental emergencies”.
	Does the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government agree that this was a terrible error of judgment on the part of his colleague?

Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend replaced an enormous, overbearing bureaucratic system with an emphasis on some key issues, one of which was flood defences. As a consequence, we are spending more on this than the Labour party did in its last five years in office, and no matter how much the Opposition huff and puff, they cannot get away from that basic fact.

Philip Davies: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his comments about overseas aid? When natural disasters take place in other parts of the world, the Government are quick to provide financial assistance to people who suffer, yet it appears that the provision of financial assistance to people in this country has been much slower. At a time when money is tight, the overseas aid budget is the only one not under financial pressure. If people need help and aid, should the aid budget not be there to support them? The Government should not treat people abroad more favourably than people at home.

Eric Pickles: The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we will spend and do whatever it takes to ensure that our communities feel safe from flooding. I recognise that my hon. Friend has a distinguished record on this matter, but I do not agree with him—I hope he will forgive me—on this occasion. I think it is possible to deal with overseas problems. I do not think that this great island nation achieved anything by looking inwards.

Mike Gapes: Last year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in response to a question from me about whether the Thames barrier could be overwhelmed in 100 years or 10 years, said:
	“We have begun preliminary investigations of the prospects of long-term flooding.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 781.]
	Have those preliminary investigations come to any conclusions, and what will be done about it, given the threat to the Thames barrier from climate change and other issues?

Eric Pickles: We have deployed the Thames barrier several times in recent weeks, and it has proved remarkably effective at protecting London and some of the islands in the upper Thames. We are confident that it will continue to play a massively important part in the defence of London well beyond the foreseeable future.

Tony Baldry: The hearts of those of us whose homes, communities and constituencies have not been flooded go out to those of our neighbours whose homes or constituencies have been. In the interests of community solidarity, could the Government not take the lead in setting up a charitable fund to which we and our constituents can contribute to support those who are under-insured, uninsured or in some other difficulty? That way we could show some solidarity and deal with these personal, human tragedies, rather than using this occasion, as some are, to score points?

Eric Pickles: That is exactly the kind of attitude that makes the Chamber a worthwhile place, rising above petty politics. A number of charities are offering help. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), met a number of co-ordinating groups, but I accept the criticism—perhaps I should apologise again—that we have not done enough to signpost them. We will ensure that there are good signposts to these excellent voluntary organisations to help people in distress.

Ian Lucas: May I invite the Secretary of State, if he has not already done so, to view Friday’s edition of “Newsnight”, which showed the powerful impact of the flooding in Somerset on individuals? When will he give us a report on the impact of climate change on these events? That is an important determinant of present policy, and we must assess the impact of present policy on the future.

Eric Pickles: Sadly, I missed Friday’s “Newsnight”, but I will do my best to pick it up on iPlayer. With regard to climate change, the best advice I have received is that the flooding probably has something to do with climate change. That is not necessarily the case—some
	of it may be the result of changing patterns—but the effects that we have to deal with are the same. I have no doubt that as part of the process of looking at how we can improve the response of the Government and the Environment Agency, we will consider that and give the hon. Gentleman, who asks a very sensible question, that kind of outlook.

Sarah Newton: The Prime Minister has shown decisive leadership in dealing with the here and now. Will my right hon. Friend do the same by calling on BT and other phone companies to ensure that they provide a priority service to reconnect vulnerable elderly people who live alone and whose lives depend on their having a working phone?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I will make those representations. Looking at the local resilience forum, I have noticed that people have a good idea where those who are vulnerable live, and I saw examples of people working together to make sure that someone who has not been about for a few days is checked up on, but that in no way diminishes my hon. Friend’s point, and I will pass on her remarks to BT and other telephone providers.

Diana Johnson: Support for individuals and families is vital when they are at risk of flooding or they have been flooded. In Hull in 2007 the National Flood Forum charity did excellent work, providing practical assistance both before and after families found themselves flooded out. Is there any additional money for the National Flood Forum to provide such assistance on the huge scale that it faces now?

Eric Pickles: We are working closely with the forum. As the hon. Lady suggests, it is doing a terrific job. I do not know about levels of funding, but clearly, if it is taking on additional work for us, we do not want it to be out of pocket.

Richard Harrington: What plans do the Government have to provide an assessment of local authorities’ plans for flood prevention in the years to come, particularly asking Hertfordshire what plans it has to stop the River Colne flooding and causing disruption to my constituents?

Eric Pickles: Local plans are fed in through the local resilience forum to our teams. One thing that has been clear in dealing with all these emergencies is that there have been pretty well worked out plans. We have found it a lot easier when we are dealing with the worries about the Thames valley that a well established pattern is in place. For example, a number of authorities have what they call flood ambassadors, who will liaise individually with individual houses and offer them support. But I will look specifically at my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Chris Bryant: Much of the land on which this Parliament is seated is reclaimed land. Indeed, King Canute was the first king to build anything here at all, so would it not be a fine tribute to parliamentary tradition if we were all to unite around building full
	resilience for the future, rather than permanently bickering every two or three years about what happened last week?

Eric Pickles: I knew it would happen at some stage in my parliamentary career, but it came a little sooner than I thought: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Duncan Hames: The Environment Agency staff, some brand new flood defences and, indeed, those on loan from Bristol city council were a welcome presence in Bradford-on-Avon this weekend. We would like to record our thanks to them. Will the Minister show the same resolve as we have seen in learning the lessons from the floods at Christmas time in taking preventive measures in all the locations that have been affected by floods this week, not just those on the levels?

Eric Pickles: Of course, and I am very happy that the beautiful town of Bradford-on-Avon has received those additional flood prevention measures. The number of demountables that we have been able to get out has been something of a record, and I have seen them in operation and how effective they are. Of course it is right that we must learn from the past, not be frightened to apologise and ensure that communities are protected from flood water, even though these have been exceptional events.

Paul Flynn: Why on this problem, as with all others, do the Government first blame the last Government, then the European Union and then the civil service? Will the Secretary of State tell us on what precise date the Government will take responsibility for their own conduct and cuts? When will he answer the claim by the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority that last week they fiddled the figures?

Eric Pickles: It is certainly not those on the Government Benches who are seeking to make political capital from this or engage in some kind of blame game. I am not entirely sure what we got out of this afternoon, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are a lot of people working extremely hard right now to keep him and his constituents warm and dry.

Peter Luff: When it comes to advice on flooding from the Environment Agency, is not the real problem that it has too often been ignored by local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, leading to inappropriate development that makes flooding worse?

Eric Pickles: I know that my hon. Friend has had some particular problems. I looked carefully at the figures for building where there was an acute risk of flooding, and I am delighted to tell him that the number of buildings in high-risk areas is at an all-time low. I am also pleased to say that where there have been objections from, say, the Environment Agency, they have been adhered to on 99.3% of occasions.

Geraint Davies: As the former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales, charged with adapting Wales to climate change in respect of flood risk management and flood systems, may I ask
	the Secretary of State why he has failed to apply for EU solidarity funding, which gave this country £162 million in 2007 and has given another 23 countries £3.5 billion since 2002? Is it because he is against European money because he is prejudiced or is it because he thinks there is a greater priority for investment than flood risk management for devastated communities? They are upset in Somerset—very upset.

Eric Pickles: I answered this the last time I appeared in the House. The reason is that there is a threshold of €3.7 billion to get over, and even should we get over the excitement of getting over the threshold to get the EU money, the way the system works means we would have to pay most of it back.

Nick Herbert: My constituency has experienced some river flooding, but it has not been as severe as that in other areas. However, there are particular problems with surface water flooding in the local villages, including the very unpleasant effects of foul water and overflowing sewerage systems. A substantial amount of new housing is proposed in those areas, at a level that local authorities consider to be unsustainable. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in setting housing numbers, local authorities will be able to take into account the adequacy of the infrastructure to support new housing, so that the current problems do not become worse in the future?

Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign in this regard, and he has made a number of very reasonable points. I think that such decisions must be made on the basis of scientific fact. The rising level of groundwater will continue to cause problems in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency and, indeed, most constituencies until well into June, even if from now on things start to shine.

Andrew Gwynne: The Environment Agency says that last year it allocated £400,000 for dredging in the Somerset levels, which is the maximum level that Treasury rules permit, but that other Government agencies and partner bodies such as local authorities were not able to “match contribute” towards the £4 million total cost of the scheme. Given the Secretary of State’s leadership role in local government, may I ask when he was made aware of its inability to contribute? May I also ask what representations he made to the Chancellor with the aim of bringing about a change in the Treasury rules?

Eric Pickles: That is why I apologised to the people of Somerset, and that is why the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), insisted on starting the dredging last autumn in order to demonstrate its efficacy. Sadly, however, the turbulent weather arrived before that excellent study could be completed, but we now know that we shall start to dredge, and we shall start to dredge in earnest.

David Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Government stripped the “hold the line” flood defence systems criteria
	from 10 to five in 2009? Will he please look into that, in order to prevent more flooding in coastal areas such as my constituency?

Eric Pickles: I did note that, but I did not want this to be a partisan exchange, which is not the attitude of the Labour party—I did not want to criticise the Labour party. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has just reminded me that we will look at bespoke patterns of support that will enable us to ameliorate the effects of flooding, and to ensure that people feel safe in their own homes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Wayne David.

Wayne David: Thank you for the sigh of confidence that you gave before calling me, Mr Speaker.
	Everyone in the House would agree that we need a united Government response to this crisis. How does the Secretary of State respond to suggestions that there is a damaging Cabinet rift between him and the Environment Secretary?

Eric Pickles: I think that you spoke for the whole House with that sigh, Mr Speaker. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Environment Secretary and I are two peas in a pod. We are two brothers from a different mother. We speak on a regular basis. I am the mere custodian of his wishes, and I look forward fervently to the day when he stands at this Dispatch Box and responds to the hon. Gentleman.

Sarah Wollaston: Devon contains a longer road network than any other local authority area in the country, and anyone travelling there will see the devastation that the flood waters are causing. Will the Secretary of State recognise that later this week, and give extra assistance to Devon?

Eric Pickles: We are offering extra assistance, and we will continue to do so. I think that we must accept, because of the nature of the weather, that we will see exceptional turbulence and disruption to transport in the region. Obviously we need to repair the rail system and make it safe, but we also need to provide alternative ways of getting about, which is why we have laid on extra coaches and the like. Once it stops raining, Devon will be a terrific place to visit, and a terrific place in which to set up a business.

Kerry McCarthy: Obviously the immediate priority has got to be to help the people in Somerset and elsewhere who are living in an absolutely desperate situation at the moment, but in the longer term—and following on from the very interesting answer the Secretary of State gave to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames)—how will the Government use the common agricultural policy direct payments budget and the Environment Agency’s maintenance budget to ensure long-term flood protection and to look at things like land management issues?

Eric Pickles: I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the consultation finishes, but we are in the middle of the process of doing exactly that. If the hon. Lady wants to make a contribution she could write to the Under-Secretary
	of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and that will be taken into consideration in the review and consultation.

Andrew Percy: As I keep reminding the House, when the rivers Aire, Ouse and Trent and the Dutch river and the Humber estuary flooded hundreds of my constituents’ homes in December, due to international events we may not have got the media attention, but at least we avoided becoming a political football. At that time we were very well supported by some very dedicated Environment Agency staff. That said, however, local farmers and the drainage boards are desperate for a change in the way in which we manage river catchments in this country so that we can have more localised solutions. May I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that happens after this flooding is finished?

Eric Pickles: I know from my discussions with the Environment Secretary that he has very strong views about this matter, because often local people know and understand individual culverts and watercourses better than other authorities, albeit that that authority might be benign, efficient and full of very good people. The point my hon. Friend highlights must be taken into consideration in the long-term review.

Stephen Doughty: Communities in my constituency, particularly along the Penarth coastline, have also been affected by these unprecedented events in recent weeks, albeit not, thankfully, to the extent we have seen elsewhere in Wales or, indeed, in the south-west and the Thames valley. Can the Secretary of State please assure the House that he has, and will continue to have, close co-operation with Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities and Natural Resources Wales given that climate change, wind, waves and rain respect no boundaries?

Eric Pickles: Absolutely. Of course, our great nations are joined together and what happens on the river Severn has a very big impact. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance unequivocally.

Nick Gibb: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in addition to high rainfall, the people of Pagham in my constituency also face problems from the sea, where the growth of the Pagham harbour spit has led to massive erosion of the shingle beach fronting hundreds of properties. Will he ask one of the Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to Pagham to see the very real danger this is presenting and to help us secure the funding and the permissions we need to cut a channel through the spit before it leads to the loss of people’s homes?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is talking about a very beautiful part of the world. I am sure DEFRA Ministers will come and visit, but I was rather hoping in the not too distant future to come and visit myself, because he raises an important matter. The amount of shingle and the like that has gone is truly breathtaking.

Laurence Robertson: The Secretary of State is right to focus on the areas he has discussed, but may I inform him that when I left my constituency this morning three of the four roads into the town of Tewkesbury were cut off, and with further heavy rainfall expected this week we expect that, sadly, a number of houses may be flooded, so will he bear us in mind as well as all the other areas he understandably has to concentrate on?

Eric Pickles: I certainly will. As I said to my hon. Friend the last time I spoke at the Dispatch Box, I remember very vividly a visit to his constituency in the summer floods of 2007, I think, and the devastating effect on local businesses and a local public house. He more than anybody understands the effect repeated flooding has on communities and the psychological damage it does. Indeed, the fate of Tewkesbury and neighbouring communities bears heavily on the mind of the Government.

Tessa Munt: The European Union Commissioner responsible for these matters has made it clear that regional disaster funding is available, with no minimum limit. The Government can define the size of the affected region, and the funding can be made available provided that serious and lasting damage has occurred, that there have been repercussions for economic stability and living conditions in the region and that 50% of people living there are affected. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that Somerset clearly qualifies for such funding, and will he ask his colleagues at DEFRA to apply for it without delay?

Eric Pickles: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has just volunteered to meet the hon. Lady, and I am sure that—

Mr Speaker: Order. We wish to see the Secretary of State’s face, looking at us all fully rather than just at those on his own Benches. He has a habit of gyrating around; let us see the man’s face.

Eric Pickles: I apologise. I have always felt that those on my own Benches scrubbed up rather well, and it is uplifting to the spirit to look at them.
	As I have said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has agreed to meet the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) to discuss that matter, and I am sure that those deliberations will be worth while.

Crispin Blunt: I understand that the Secretary of State will be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) shortly. The Secretary of State will be aware that a bankrupt country would find it much more difficult to defend itself, and it is to this Government’s credit that they managed marginally to increase flood defence funding on coming into office. However, the long-term investment strategy put out by the Environment Agency in 2009 made it clear that we were going to have to almost double our investment in flood defences. Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues make that point forcefully to the Treasury?

Eric Pickles: The Treasury is taking an enormous interest in the promises that Ministers are making from the Dispatch Box. Even when representatives of the Treasury are not physically in the room, their presence is always felt.

Jake Berry: Will the Secretary of State ensure that local Environment Agency workers have the ability to team up with farmers, particularly to work on catchment area solutions such as tree planting? Will he also ensure that the agency takes some of the reported £2.4 million that it has spent on public relations services and puts it into the Rossendale valley to prevent flooding on the River Irwell, the River Darwen and the River Ogden?

Eric Pickles: Many hon. Members have made that point about local solutions. We are looking for an integrated approach from local drainage boards, local authorities and the Environment Agency to deal with these problems. It is often the people on the ground who understand the problems better.

Neil Parish: The flooding on the Somerset levels during the past six weeks has destroyed homes, farmland and wildlife habitat, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to look into dredging. For 20 years, successive Governments have not done so, and have not dealt with the problem.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of dredging, and that was the principal reason why I felt it was appropriate to apologise to the people of Somerset for us ignoring their views. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, however, there is no single solution that fits everywhere. Dredging there would be a sensible thing to do, for example, but dredging on the River Kennet would not be sensible. We are therefore looking for bespoke solutions in particular areas.

Andrew Griffiths: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his robust management of this crisis, and on focusing on what matters—namely, helping those people who are knee-deep in water. Given that the River Parrett has not been dredged since 2005, does he not find the response from those on the Opposition Benches a bit hypocritical?

Eric Pickles: I am never surprised by those on the Labour Benches. It is true that I take a robust view on this and sometimes may have erred on the wrong side of robust, but I believe that the things I say in public should be those that I believe in private. I certainly believe that someone whose house is flooded, someone who is worried about their future employment or someone who is worried about their communities wants to know whether the Government are going to get on and deal with the job, or are they going to bicker on pointless procedural points?

Steve Brine: A great number of my constituents in place such as Kings Worthy, Twyford and Winchester have had a truly miserable weekend. I met people with very young children and very elderly people who have been in tears this weekend, and it brings home the real human cost of this, not the petty
	politics that we are sometimes seeing today. The Secretary of State will understand the sheer helplessness that many of my constituents feel right now. What advice does he have for those who are rightly concerned about the public health threats that will arise if flood waters around their homes persist for a long period?

Eric Pickles: We are, of course, not only constantly monitoring the rise of the flood waters, but analysing what is within them, with a view to public health. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being out and about with his constituents, as I am sure everybody here will be. One thing that has become very clear through this is that people in public office, be it Members of Parliament or councillors, have taken a considerable lead, not just in pressing for resources or offering help, but in rolling their sleeves up and getting involved—they should be commended.

Neil Carmichael: First, I wish to thank all the people in my constituency in the agencies and services who have done so much on prevention and risk-management. In order effectively to sharpen the focus on flood defence perhaps there should be a strategic review, so does the Secretary of State agree that it needs to be reinforced and informed by strong local input?

Eric Pickles: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that strong local input is immensely important. Although authorities from nearby cities or from London can have a grand strategic view, local people know how the rivers and culverts flow, and are in a position to offer good advice.

Stephen Barclay: The Environment Agency is spending £18 million on waterlogging some of the best farmland in the country in my constituency to create a habitat for birds, in a scheme due to start in a couple of months. Will my right hon. Friend examine the resource allocation within the Environment Agency, because it is not just dredging, but wider river maintenance that matters in areas such as the Cambridgeshire fens?

Eric Pickles: I am somewhat conflicted on this, as when I am not here I am somewhat of a twitcher and I was very much looking forward to the particular habitat my hon. Friend was talking about. He makes a reasonable point: we now need to look at priorities. We need to consider things not only in terms of where people live, but in terms of ensuring that we are able to produce sustainably the products from agriculture that this nation so desperately needs, and so reduce our imports and dependency on elsewhere. He makes a very good point.

Eric Ollerenshaw: The residents of Fleetwood are extremely grateful to the Government for the £60 million-plus they agreed in the summer to provide much-needed new sea defences. But the residents of Thurnham, just along the coast, are being told by the Environment Agency that it will not maintain their sea defences beyond 30 years because of Treasury rules about the valuation of farming land. As part of the Secretary of State’s long-term plan on flooding, can he get the Treasury to re-examine these rules?

Eric Pickles: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is going to be very busy, because he would like to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on precisely this issue. I would not be flippant and say that 30 years is a long time and things can change, but this set of storms has been a big wake-up call, not just for government and the Environment Agency, but for the nation as a whole, and we need to make some valuable judgments about where it is appropriate to have defences.

Therese Coffey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in thanking the volunteers from Halesworth who proactively filled sandbags and put them out along the thoroughfare and outside houses on Friday night. More importantly, although a tragedy is happening in the Thames valley and the south-west, there is a silver lining, as we once again have an opportunity to reflect on the strategy on making space for water and the principles on which the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was founded. Will he assure me that a review will involve a consideration of the flood, water and habitat directives, and that there will be a recognition that some of the things we have to do are, frankly, bonkers, while common-sense stuff is being left aside?

Eric Pickles: I assure my hon. Friend that we will consider all matters relating to flooding and the storms, whether that is the habitat directive or questions of global warming, but I hope she will forgive us that, right now, we need to get on with the process of making communities feel safe.

Graham Stuart: We had a wake-up call in 2000, when the then Prime Minister made promises to MPs in No. 10 Downing street. That happened again in 2007 and it is happening now, so the one question remaining for the House is
	how we put in place a long-term framework that will mean that, when the political spotlight moves on, flooding does not drop down the list of priorities, as has been the case under successive Governments.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a firm point, but these storms have been so dramatic, widespread and all-encompassing that the coalition Government’s resolve is that we are determined not to flunk the decisions and make the mistakes of the past.

Christopher Pincher: The River Mease in my constituency has regularly flooded near Elford, Haunton and Harlaston, partly because the Environment Agency, with other agencies, has refused to allow farmers to clear and manage their watercourses. May I echo others by asking my right hon. Friend to encourage the practitioners of conventional orthodoxy to pay close attention to the concerns and advice of farmers, who are as expert at managing their fields and watercourses as anyone in the EA?

Eric Pickles: We have looked to farmers and those in similar professions to help us out during this whole process and their local knowledge has often made the difference. As I have said from the Dispatch Box, my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary believes in that principle passionately, and I believe that good management is operated, if only by acting as an agency for the agency.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Environment Agency were subject to a duty to take account of economic growth such as that proposed in the Deregulation Bill, it would have a welcome opportunity to redefine, refocus and improve its long-term policies and direction?

Eric Pickles: I am sure that many in the Environment Agency, which is made up of excellent people, will have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend and may well be taking those wise words into account.

Afghanistan

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan. At the end of this year we will have completed our combat mission in Afghanistan, so today is an opportunity not just to pay tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces, but to reflect on why the mission matters and what we have achieved so far and to look forward to the completion of Operation Herrick.
	It is well over a decade since September 11, but the events of that day still have the power to shock. The operation that began later in 2001, and continues to this day, has been hard fought and has cost us dear, but the cost of doing nothing and abandoning Afghanistan to the terrorists and insurgents would have been much greater. Thankfully, in today’s Afghanistan al-Qaeda is a shadow of its former self, and we are all safer as a consequence.
	Since the start of operations in 2001, 447 members of our armed forces have made the ultimate sacrifice, two of them since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made the last quarterly statement on Afghanistan to the House on 17 October. I know that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage and commitment of those individuals, and of their families, who have to live daily with the loss of their loved ones, and of the many hundreds more who have suffered life-changing injuries. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten. They have protected our national security by helping the Afghans take control of theirs. Working with our international security assistance force partners and the Afghans themselves, they have ensured that Afghanistan is neither a safe haven, nor a launch pad for terrorists who despise everything we stand for and seek to destroy our way of life.
	The security situation in Afghanistan today represents very real progress since 2003. When the campaign started, the Afghan national security forces did not exist. Today they are leading operations, protecting the population and taking on the Taliban. For example, as part of the security operation for the Loya Jirga in November, the ANSF established a layered security zone a week before the event. It was a complex, large-scale operation in which all elements of the ANSF co-operated. The results were impressive: 6 tonnes of home-made explosives were interdicted and the event ran safely and smoothly.
	A major operation in December spanning Kandahar, Zabul and Daykundi provinces, and involving over 4,000 ANSF personnel, had a similarly successful outcome. More than 250 villages were cleared of insurgents and more than 600 improvised explosive devices were destroyed, with few casualties sustained. The Afghan air force flew resupply missions and evacuated casualties during the operation, with ISAF support limited to advice, intelligence and a small number of air support operations.
	The ANSF have almost reached their surge strength target of 352,000 army, police and air force personnel, and between them they are leading 97% of all security operations and carrying out over 90% of their own training. While work continues on professionalising the forces and addressing high attrition levels, their ability
	to provide security for the Afghan people and maintain the momentum generated by a coalition of 50 nations remains a significant achievement—a source of pride to the Afghan forces themselves and a source of confidence to the civilian population.
	As the ANSF have grown in stature, so our role in Afghanistan has evolved from leading combat operations to training, advising and assisting the ANSF. Today, UK forces are primarily engaged in mentoring their Afghan counterparts, providing world-class training and support and undertaking our own draw-down and redeployment activity. The progress of the ANSF is helping to drive the pace of transition, enabling us to meet our target of reducing our military footprint in Afghanistan to 5,200, down by nearly half from this time last year, when there were around 9,000 UK personnel in theatre.
	As the nature of the mission has changed and the Afghans have taken the lead responsibility for security across central Helmand’s three districts, we have significantly reduced the number of British bases, from 137 at the height of our engagement to 13 last January and just four plus Camp Bastion today. Our draw-down trajectory will reduce our footprint to one forward observation post and the main operating base at Camp Bastion following the elections. Subsequently, as we enter the final phase of the Herrick campaign, the UK will combine its headquarters at Camp Bastion with those of the US Marine Corps.
	Our efforts have not just focused on building the necessary security apparatus. The UK-led provincial reconstruction team, currently operating from Camp Bastion ahead of the completion of its mission next month, has helped deliver real progress in Helmand. Today, 80% of the local population can access health care within 10 km of their home, improved security and infrastructure conditions have meant the reopening of local bazaars and the reinvigoration of the local economy, 260 km of roads have been added to the existing network since 2012, and we have seen the completion of the paving of the strategically important Route 611 in Helmand, a project funded jointly by the UK and the United Arab Emirates.
	Ordinary Afghans have seen the quality of their life improve significantly, and we can be proud of the role we have played in making this possible. Nationwide, there has been a 20% rise in household incomes since 2010, and tax revenues increased eightfold between 2004 and 2012. About 6 million children are in school, compared with fewer than 1 million a decade ago under the Taliban. About a third of those are girls, who were previously denied this basic right altogether.
	The presidential elections in April will be an important step on Afghanistan’s path to normalisation. The insurgency will almost certainly target these elections in an attempt to derail the process and prevent the Afghan people from casting their votes as is their democratic right. Ultimately, it will be for the ANSF to safeguard the elections, but the UK is committing £20 million to help the Afghan electoral authorities improve their management of the process. Ultimately, a political settlement between the Afghan Government and the Taliban offers the best prospect of a sustainable peace in Afghanistan. As we know from our own experience, securing peace and achieving reconciliation is a long, complex and difficult
	process. We will continue to support the efforts of the Afghan Government and the High Peace Council to achieve this crucial objective.
	The combat operation might be ending, but our commitment to Afghanistan will endure. A small contingent of UK military will remain to provide the coalition lead at the Afghan national army officer academy, supported by mentors from Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Norway. The academy is currently training over 250 male officer cadets. We expect to train an additional 30 female officers alongside each male intake, with the first female cohort starting in June this year. Together, they will form the next generation of military leaders, and this will be our lasting legacy to the Afghan army.
	We want to continue this support, but that requires a NATO status-of-forces agreement which, in turn, requires the Afghans to sign the US-Afghan bilateral security agreement. The BSA was painstakingly negotiated over many months. The Loya Jirga has spoken for the clear majority of Afghans in endorsing it and welcoming international support after 2014. It is now imperative to the future of Afghanistan that this agreement is signed.
	Afghanistan today is a very different place from the one we entered in 2001. The Afghans are taking charge of their security and their democracy. It is changing fast, with a growing economy, a young population, and a revolution in access to the outside world through mobile communications and satellite TV. The 2013 Asia Foundation survey of Afghanistan paints a picture of a people who, despite the country’s difficulties, can dare to hope. This is particularly true in Helmand, where 84% of the population believe their country is heading in the right direction. They are a people who are at last seeing an opportunity to move away from the conflicts of the past and towards a brighter future of reconciliation, investment and lasting security.
	We have played a key part in making that happen. We should be proud of what our armed forces have achieved over the past 13 years in helping Afghanistan to stand once again on its own two feet. Our focus now is on helping the Afghans to secure the gains of the last decade, using these as a platform for further steady progress in the years to come. I commend this statement to the House.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	Nothing unites this House more than the admiration we have for our armed forces and their service and sacrifice. Nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan. As the Defence Secretary said, 447 members of our armed forces have died in operations there since 2001, with many more injured. Their commitment to the United Kingdom and Afghanistan, and to our respective peoples, should never, and will never, be forgotten.
	Many British civilians are also working to build peace and progress in Afghanistan, and that will become ever more important as the combat missions wind down. Does the Secretary of State share the shock and sadness at the attack in Kabul just a few weeks ago that cost the lives of 21 people, including two British citizens? Many
	colleagues from across the political spectrum knew Del Singh, who died in that explosion. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said:
	“He dedicated his life to working with people across the world who needed his support.”
	Ultimately, he gave his life, too, and we in the Labour party remember him and his work with pride and a sense of determination to continue it.
	Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure the protection of British forces and civilians and give reassurance to them and their families as to what is being done to provide it, both now and after the military draw-down? Does he share the concern that civilian deaths in Afghanistan rose by 14% in 2013, and to what does he attribute that significant rise?
	There has been undoubted, but not irreversible, progress in Afghanistan. In terms of finding a political settlement, it is clear that elections scheduled for April are an indication of both the advances and the challenges that remain. Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps are being taken by international forces to ensure that insurgents do not succeed in disrupting the elections and, by extension, the democratic right of the Afghan people? What is his assessment of the risk of increased insurgent activity in the run-up to the Afghanistan national elections this year, particularly in urban areas?
	The role of external actors will, as the Defence Secretary knows, also be key. What is the Government’s assessment of the most recent peace talks between the Pakistani Government and the Taliban? How is this impacting on the Taliban’s behaviour in Afghanistan? Has he read reports that they are patrolling jointly with the Afghan national security forces, and what is his assessment of the implications of that?
	May I also ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about security and the role of the ANSF and ISAF as the international combat mission ends? Will he provide specific details of what he expects the UK military footprint to be in Afghanistan beyond 2014? As the number of deployed troops falls, the level of danger for ISAF units increases, so will the Defence Secretary tell the House what is being done to maintain vigilance on force protection as UK forces wind down through the course of this year?
	Will the Defence Secretary update the House on the progress of the Afghan national army officer academy and the work being done there, particularly on core anti-insurgency capabilities such as air cover, air support, medical evacuation, intelligence gathering and indirect fire support? What percentage of that training is now provided by ANSF forces themselves?
	The Defence Secretary will have seen media reports today about the RAF utilising United States air force assets—namely, unmanned aircraft—when UK aircraft are unavailable. Will he confirm that those aircraft always operate on UK tasks, with RAF aircrew in control, using our rules of engagement?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that no soldier currently serving in Afghanistan will face compulsory redundancy, and will he clarify whether serving personnel who apply for redundancy will have their application accepted? What will the total cost of equipment repatriation be to the Ministry of Defence?
	It is clear that, as we approach the withdrawal of British and international combat forces, the more necessary it will be for us to adopt a comprehensive approach to engagement with and in Afghanistan. The shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Secretary of State for International Development—my right hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) respectively—and I work together closely on that and I know the Defence Secretary does, too. What action is he taking to ensure proper treatment and, if necessary, safe haven for those who have supported our forces as interpreters over the past years?
	Today the US Government announced three new development initiatives worth almost $300 million. What assessment have the Government made of how UK aid will work alongside those plans?
	One area of shared concern is that of the rights of women and girls after the international forces depart. Will the Secretary of State update us on what discussions the Government are having with counterparts in Afghanistan on the issues? Does he share our deep concern—I am sure he does—about the new law that will, in effect, silence female victims of domestic violence and forced or child marriage?
	There can be no room for complacency about such complicated and continuing issues. There is still much work to be done before the end of our combat mission, with British troops remaining in danger, and there will be a great deal of work, albeit of a different kind, to do afterwards. Our commitment is to build peace, progress and the lasting stability that our armed services have fought so bravely to secure.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter, on which—to the great credit of this Parliament—there has been and remains a bipartisan approach.
	I of course share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments on the Kabul attack, the purpose of which is to undermine the international support on which Afghanistan will depend for many years to come if it is to continue to make progress. I am sure that all Government Members will wish to be associated with his expression of sympathy to the families and friends of the British victims of the attack.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the future security of British civilians in Kabul. Obviously, we are monitoring the situation closely, and we will make appropriate arrangements to support British civilians in Kabul, particularly those on Crown service. He would not expect me to go into the detail of those arrangements at the Dispatch Box, but there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that Kabul will remain a dangerous place for foreigners for the foreseeable future. We will rely primarily on the ANSF to maintain security in that city.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the recent rise in the civilian death rate. That is of course deeply regrettable, but I am sure that he would want to focus attention on the fact that more than 74% of all civilian deaths are directly attributable to the insurgency. In fact, the number of civilian deaths attributable to ISAF action has gone down over time, and the number of those attributable
	to ISAF air strikes—they were once the cause of considerable concern—has gone down by 80%. That is something that we will continue to pursue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about election security and what action ISAF will take. Clearly, ISAF will support the ANSF in every way it can, particularly in the provision of intelligence and surveillance capabilities, but the ANSF must take the lead. The message around this election is that the Afghans have taken lead responsibility for their security. The ANSF is capable, and it is very determined to be seen to lead this operation and to deliver the security that Afghanistan’s fledgling democracy requires.
	There will be threats to the elections. We have already seen a concerted campaign of targeted assassinations. I am afraid that the realists among us expect that to continue and probably to accelerate as we move towards the election date. It is greatly to the credit of the leaders of Afghanistan’s democracy that it has not yet in any way undermined their enthusiasm for the democratic process.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the talks going on between the Pakistan Government and the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan in relation to the situation in North Waziristan. We of course hope that there is the possibility of a solution between the two sides, but it remains the case that the Pakistan Government have to be willing to take firm action against the TTP in North Waziristan if a settlement is not possible.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the reports of joint patrolling in Sangin. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of these reports, but I have personally been able to establish at the very highest levels that there is no mandate from the higher levels of the Afghan system for any such activity. Indeed, action has been taken to ensure that nothing that could be interpreted as joint patrolling or any kind of compromise with the insurgency can happen again.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK footprint. As he knows, our position is that we expect to have a continuing footprint at the Afghan national army officer academy at Qargha, just outside Kabul. That footprint will be within a much larger complex, which will have a US and ANSF-controlled perimeter. I cannot give him the precise number of UK personnel at the moment, but it will probably be between 150 and 250, depending on our precise assessment of the force protection needs at the time. He asked what percentage of training at the ANAOA is being done by Afghans. I cannot give a precise figure. If I can get a useful figure, I will write to him. It uses a “train the trainer” model, so we expect the Afghans increasingly to take responsibility for direct training.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about media reports on remotely piloted air systems and about US aircraft backfilling for the unavailability of UK remotely piloted aircraft. We operate a combined fleet with the US and there is ISAF tasking. UK and US aircraft therefore fly ISAF mission tasks and they may be piloted by UK or US pilots. However, UK pilots always operate to UK rules of engagement. The rules of engagement for remotely piloted aircraft are exactly the same as those for our Tornado aircraft and those that will apply to our Apache rotary-wing aircraft when they are in action.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance—with tongue in cheek, I hope—that any volunteers for redundancy who are currently serving in Afghanistan will be accepted. I cannot give him that assurance. They will certainly be considered. The criteria for voluntary redundancy relate to the future shape of the force and whether the skills that individuals hold are needed for its sustainment.
	The repatriation of equipment is slightly ahead of plan. We have repatriated about half the equipment that we have to repatriate. Originally, we estimated that the cost would be up to £300 million. We are confident that the repatriation will be completed within that cost envelope.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about locally employed civilians. He will know that we have two offers for locally employed civilians. The first is a redundancy scheme for eligible individuals who have served on the front line as interpreters, which allows them to accept a financial and resettlement package in Afghanistan or to come to the UK. So far, most of those who are eligible have opted to come to the UK. The second is an intimidation package for those who are not eligible for resettlement in the UK under the redundancy scheme, but who have experienced intimidation in Afghanistan.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about our future aid budget. We are committed to providing £170 million per annum of ongoing Department for International Development support to Afghanistan until at least 2017. Some of that aid is targeted at projects that seek to protect the legacy of our achievement in the crucial area of the rights of women and girls. The Afghans made specific commitments on that area in Tokyo, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development addressed President Karzai on the subject personally during her most recent visit to Kabul.

James Arbuthnot: May I welcome and agree with what the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have said on this important subject? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one cannot sensibly discuss Afghanistan without also discussing Pakistan? That region is and will continue to be of supreme importance to this country. Does he agree that as we draw down in Afghanistan, we should consider increasing our attention on and assistance to Pakistan in order to preserve that importance?

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pakistan is crucial to the security of the United Kingdom. A significant proportion of the potential terrorist threats to the United Kingdom comes from the tribal areas of Pakistan, and we target a commensurate proportion of our aid effort into Pakistan. That includes a programme of military support for counter-IED training, which is greatly appreciated by the Pakistanis because it addresses a very real threat to their civilian population.

Bob Ainsworth: Further to the question from the Chairman of the Defence Committee, much of the logistic support and leadership of the Afghan insurgency remains across the border in Pakistan. Does the Secretary of State agree
	that the opportunity for a real settlement would be vastly improved if the Pakistanis were prepared to engage properly and take effective action against those individuals? Has he seen positive signs of an increased preparedness to do so that he can report to the House?

Philip Hammond: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that that area on the border is difficult to access. The border is very porous: action on one side tends to drive people across to safe havens on the other side, and the reverse happens when action starts on the other side of the border. It needs collaboration. There has been modest progress at tactical operational level on Afghanistan/Pakistan co-operation along the border, and we have seen a considerable de-escalation of tension along the border since the events of November 2012, which led to a serious stand-off and the closure of the reverse lines of supply through Pakistan. This will be a long haul, but I believe that the relatively new Government in Pakistan are committed to working with regional partners to secure stability in Afghanistan, and that they have realised that stability in Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s long-term interest.

Gerald Howarth: We can all be extremely proud of the achievements not only of Her Majesty’s armed forces but of the provisional reconstruction team that my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement. Does he agree that the future for Afghanistan after we leave still presents immense challenges? At the risk of being rather boring about this, may I press my right hon. Friend that, subject to an agreement on the status of forces after the end of this year, we should retain a sizeable interest in the country? If it all goes pear-shaped, very soon there will be 447 grieving families who say, “What did our sons die for in vain?” We have soldiers, sailors and airmen present, and it is better that they should be doing that than kicking their heels in Aldershot.

Philip Hammond: I can assure my hon. Friend that those people did not die in vain. They have delivered stability in Afghanistan that it could only have dreamed of a decade ago; they have made substantial progress in delivering the infrastructure of a functioning state; and they have protected us from terrorist attacks that could otherwise have originated from that territory. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the footprint post-2014 will be, as I have set out, based around the Afghan national officer academy, but even that will be at risk if we do not get the bilateral security agreement signed and a NATO status of forces agreement in place.

Gisela Stuart: German Foreign Minister Steinmeier has said that Germany will not agree to Bundeswehr training missions unless that agreement is signed. Have we been as explicit, saying that unless it is signed ASAP we will simply not enter into further agreements?

Philip Hammond: I think Mr Steinmeier was merely articulating a view that is shared by all NATO partners. We cannot operate without a status of forces agreement that will protect our own forces from exposure to Afghan judicial processes. We must be able to deal with forces’ discipline issues ourselves, and to assure any forces we put into theatre that they will not be subject to local jurisdiction; without that, we will not be able to operate.
	I think the Afghans understand clearly that no bilateral security agreement and no status of forces agreement means that there will be no foreign forces in Afghanistan.

Nicholas Soames: May I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the extraordinary achievements of all three services, of all ranks and of all arms, for their exceptional services in Afghanistan? Will he also congratulate the Ministry of Defence and all those responsible for the extraordinary logistical operation of bringing back so much kit, which will be useful to us in the future? Would he consider doing more at the Ministry of Defence to make clearer to the population at large the extent of the British achievement in Afghanistan, and the fact that we are leaving in good order but will take steps to ensure the protection of those troops that are left there? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, we will do our best to protect our heritage and legacy there.

Philip Hammond: As I have made clear, we are very committed to protecting that heritage, but we can do so only with the co-operation of the Afghans in the form of a status of forces agreement, which will allow us to have a continuing presence and to make the continued financial contribution we have agreed to support the Afghan state in future.
	I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to all three services, and in his welcome tribute to those who labour behind the scenes in the incredibly complex logistics operation. Many Members of the House will, in one guise or another, have had the opportunity to see the scale of the operation at Camp Bastion. Anyone who has seen it will understand how integral the ability to take tens of thousands of tonnes of matériel that far away and sustain it in a war theatre is to our military capability.

Derek Twigg: It is worrying that, as the Secretary of State has made clear, senior commanders did not have the situation under control in Sangin to such an extent that joint patrols took place with the Taliban. Are the Taliban and/or the insurgency network pushing out or defeating the Afghan security forces in any other parts of Afghanistan?

Philip Hammond: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure whether it has been established that there was anything that could be called a joint patrol. The reality in Afghanistan is that some areas are not controlled by the Government and are under the control of the Taliban. Where there is such an interface, either it can be dynamic, with continuous fighting, or there can be some kind of understanding that allows it to be stable and for the boundary to be recognised. My interaction with senior Afghan commanders and political leaders reassures me that they do not recognise any arrangements such as those he describes, and that they have taken steps to ensure that nothing that could be misinterpreted as a joint arrangement on the ground will happen in future.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State see any connection between the reluctance of the Afghan Government to sign the very important future security agreement and the sort of negotiations that they may be having with the Taliban?

Philip Hammond: It is possible that the considerations in play in the Afghan President’s calculations on the bilateral security agreement involve negotiations that may or may not be happening, and that may or may not be visible to us, with elements of the insurgency. It is also possible that the situation is influenced by the impending presidential election and the politics of that.

Sandra Osborne: The Secretary of State has said that 30 women are being trained at the academy along with the group of men. I am not sure what the time scale is for the training, but I recall that there was a target to train 150 women a year. Was that target too ambitious or is it still in place?

Philip Hammond: There are 30 women per training cohort. I will need to check whether there are five cohorts in a year—if there are, the target is still in place. I will do so and write to the hon. Lady.

Edward Garnier: Last Saturday, I went to the squadron of the Leicestershire and Derbyshire Yeomanry, part of the Royal Yeomanry based in my constituency in South Wigston, where I presented campaign medals to three members of the reserve forces, two of whom had recently come back from Afghanistan where they had been serving in active roles. One of them, Trooper Edwards, was a driver of a Warthog vehicle stationed with the Royal Tank Regiment. The Secretary of State mentioned repatriated equipment. Will some of it be repatriated for use by the reserve forces, who have demonstrated their ability to take their role alongside the regular forces, but who need the equipment to train so that they can be more effectively deployed with it?

Philip Hammond: There are two separate points here. First, the equipment that was bought for Afghanistan through urgent operational requirements, especially armoured vehicles, represents a significant investment and we are repatriating it into core. All armoured vehicles except those that are damaged beyond economic repair will be returned to the UK and brought back into the core equipment fleet.
	On the question of reserves, we have made a commitment that the reserves will increasingly in the future train on and use the same equipment as the regular forces. We have already started to deliver on that commitment by rolling out new deliveries of equipment to reserve units across the country. The pool of equipment will be joint, for the use of the integrated force—regulars and reserves.

John Woodcock: Our fundamental mission in Afghanistan was of course to improve the security of the British people, rather than any improvement in the living conditions of Afghans. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the two go hand in hand? If we leave behind a more progressive country, it is more likely to remain an enduring ally of the United Kingdom in the decades ahead. Will he agree to look again at our principles for future intervention to ensure that making countries more progressive and upholding our values remain a fundamental part of what we are about as a country?

Philip Hammond: Let me answer that question this way: it is clear that our immediate mission was to deny Afghanistan to terrorists who would have used it as a
	base to strike at us and our allies and interests. But in the long term, it was never going to be a credible proposition that foreign forces could hold this territory. We had to build a stable and capable state in Afghanistan with a security force of its own that could do that job. My judgment is that a country that has a basic rule of law and recognises human rights will be a more stable and sustainable place in the future. A country that has education, health care and infrastructure will engage the loyalty of its citizens in a way that Afghan Governments have not always done in the past. We have to be very careful about the tone of this debate, however. It is not about exporting our perfect model of society and imposing it on others who in many fundamental respects will not accept some of the tenets that we regard as basic to our everyday existence.

Martin Horwood: I welcome and support the Secretary of State’s statement, especially his praise for our armed forces. As well the need to bring them safely home, he has touched on the fact that we have to return or dispose of considerable amounts of military matériel. Will he comment—either today or in a fuller statement in due course—on the matériel that we will dispose of and exactly where it will go?

Philip Hammond: I can give my hon. Friend some indication. As at the end of January, we had redeployed 1,694 vehicles and other major equipment, and 2,374 20-foot equivalent containers of matériel. We have also destroyed or disposed of some equipment in theatre, but I can assure him that no military equipment is disposed of in any way that would allow anything of military use to fall into the hands of the enemy. I can assure the House from my personal experience that this obligation is taken very seriously. I saw a container full of dead Duracell batteries and I was told that they had to be brought back to the UK because they might be of use to the enemy if they were left in theatre. The military are not taking any chances.

Madeleine Moon: The Secretary of State has advised the House that our remotely piloted air systems capability is utilised across ISAF, not just by our own RAF forces. Is he also able to assure the House that at no point have other members of ISAF been able to use any of our RPAS for intelligence gathering or for armed attacks in Pakistan?

Philip Hammond: Our RPAS vehicles in our fleet operate only in Afghanistan, so I am able to reassure the hon. Lady on that point.

Julian Brazier: In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement and commending the professionalism and courage of our armed forces, may I nevertheless urge him, when we look back on lessons learned for future conflicts, to continue to ask the hard questions not on the intervention in 2002 after 9/11, but on the decision to move south into Helmand in 2006, both per se and on the question mark over the split between the different Government agencies, which took such a very long time to heal, and the split command structure in Afghanistan at the time?

Philip Hammond: I have no doubt that in the fullness of time all these things will be examined in great detail. I know that my hon. Friend would not want his comments to detract in any way from the fantastic job that British forces have done in three of the most kinetic and dangerous districts in the whole of Afghanistan. In fact, the three districts of central Helmand are Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in terms of enemy activity. The job we took on was very challenging and the work done by our armed forces has been very successful in addressing that challenge.

Keith Vaz: Last month, three Afghan interpreters commenced legal proceedings against the Government, highlighting the difference between their treatment and the treatment of former Iraqi interpreters. Since June last year, 116 claims have been made relating to threats made against those former Afghan interpreters. Why are we treating the Afghan interpreters differently from the Iraqi interpreters? Both supported our Government’s troops and put their lives at risk.

Philip Hammond: First, just to put the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks in context, all those claims, I think, have been brought by a single law firm that has not stumbled on these claimants by accident. The reason we are treating them differently is because the circumstances are different. After careful consideration of the differences between the situation in Afghanistan and the situation that existed in Iraq, we took the decision to make the redundancy package proposal that we have made. We also have in place in Afghanistan an intimidation policy that is able to deal with any cases of intimidation that fall outside the scope of the redundancy package. We did not have such a policy in place in Iraq.

Tobias Ellwood: May I, too, welcome the statement, which shows that Afghanistan is increasingly taking control and responsibility for its own affairs? May I also offer a tribute to our armed forces? I am a frequent visitor to Afghanistan and it was positive to see how the capability of the Afghan armed forces has improved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while there are many challenges in the areas of economic development and governance, NATO should be commended for its specific role in improving security and in training the local Afghan forces in a very difficult environment?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. NATO should be very proud of what has been an incredibly complex operation integrated across the 50 partner nations. On the capability of the ANSF, I think it is fair to say that at every stage of the process our UK commanders have been pleased and surprised at the rate and quality of progress made by the Afghan forces. They have become a credible and sustainable military force in far quicker time than we ever really expected would be possible.

John Denham: As the Secretary of State knows, the Hazaras are an ethnically distinct, predominantly Shi’a minority in Afghanistan. They suffered terribly under the Taliban, but also under previous Governments. At a meeting in this House in January of the Hazara all-party group, a lot of concerns were expressed about the vulnerability of this minority,
	come the withdrawal. Will he say what specific discussions have taken place on the vulnerability and protection of minority groups such as the Hazaras as the year progresses?

Philip Hammond: The Afghan constitution makes it clear that all ethnic minorities are protected and enjoy the same rights. Furthermore, some of the key players in Afghan society and political circles are Hazara. Of course, however, we should be mindful of the risks to ethnic minorities and the risk of ethnic fragmentation, which, after all, is at the root of many of Afghanistan’s historical problems. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is, therefore, well made, and it is very much on the radar screen.

Crispin Blunt: In echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), I think we should reflect on the fact that two and a half times as many British servicemen have died in Afghanistan as died in Iraq and that the proportion of injuries among us and the Americans is about five times that suffered in Iraq. It is, therefore, inconceivable that there should not be a full and proper inquiry into the entire campaign. Now that the end date for active UK operations is well in sight, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend took back to the Prime Minister the need to establish such an inquiry.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend has made his position clear. There are different views about the wisdom of embarking on these large-scale inquiries, but I certainly undertake to pass his suggestion to the Prime Minister.
	While I am on my feet, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take the opportunity to confirm that we expect 150 female cadets to be trained per year? The course is indeed 10 weeks, so there will be five cohorts of 30 in each year.

Paul Flynn: Heroin production is at a record high, the number of civilian deaths is at a record high, the Taliban control large parts of the country and the hard-won women’s rights are being degraded by the ingrate Karzai, who described our brave soldiers and their work as a failure, especially in Helmand, where most of them died. Can this be described as “mission accomplished”?

Philip Hammond: And the hon. Gentleman forgot to say that the glass was half empty. No one has ever suggested that Afghanistan is emerging as a perfect society. This is a war-torn country with deep ethnic and tribal divisions and a young and fragile Government seeking to hold it together, and we are trying to assist them in maintaining something better than what has been there in the past—decades of internecine warfare resulting in desperate standards of living, many tens of thousands of people dead and many more displaced.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, there has been an uptick in civilian deaths, but given the historical levels of civilian deaths, I believe we are making progress. I am disappointed by the recent opium harvest figures—he is right that we are not making as much progress there as we would like—but on women’s rights I think he is being unduly negative. Rights do not just operate around statutes and laws; they are about societal norms, and the norms in Afghan society are changing. The genie of women’s rights is out of the bottle, as even the Taliban
	now acknowledge in recognising the rights of girls to an education. That is progress, albeit slow and painful progress.

Jeremy Lefroy: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the work of 3 Mercian, the Staffords, as it carries out its final operational tour? It has given unstinting and costly service over many years of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Philip Hammond: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the unstinting work that 3 Mercian has done. I can remember, long before I came into this job, listening to those reports on our televisions every night and thinking that the Mercian Regiment seemed to suffer a disproportionate number of casualties. It has given a great deal to this campaign, and the nation will remain profoundly grateful to it.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State referred to the porous nature of the border with Pakistan. Is there any prospect that a newly elected leadership in Afghanistan—perhaps disputedly elected, as last time—will be any more likely to recognise the Durand line as an international border, or will we have this continuing problem of the open, free movement of terrorists from either side to the other?

Philip Hammond: I do not claim to be an expert on the complexities of Afghan politics, but it would probably be suicidal for any elected Afghan politician to recognise the Durand line, which the Afghan people do not recognise as a fair definition of the boundary of their country. Having said that, it is not disputes over the Durand line that make the border porous; it is the nature of the terrain, which is just about the most inhospitable it is possible to imagine. Flying over it, the only thought in one’s mind is: “How on earth could anybody possibly live, let alone move around, in this kind of territory?”, but those who wish to, manage to.

Patrick Mercer: The Secretary of State has wisely and correctly made reference to the national officer academy. Can he confirm that places will be offered to officers and officer cadets of neighbouring allied countries?

Philip Hammond: No; the purpose of the Afghan national army officer academy is to train officers for the Afghan national army. We have a number of nations contributing trainers and mentors to that process, but as far as I am aware, there are no plans at the moment to offer cadet places to the armies of any other country.

Debbie Abrahams: Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), may I press the Secretary of State on what he is doing to ensure that the position of women and girls does not deteriorate as ISAF leaves? We are very concerned about the new law and its implications for preventing family members from prosecuting other family members in cases of domestic violence.

Philip Hammond: I hear the hon. Lady’s concern. All I can do is repeat to her that my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, who visited
	Afghanistan recently, met President Karzai and presented to him her concerns about this and other matters, and the implications of pursuing that route for Afghanistan’s future support from the international community, upon which that country will be dependent. There was a clear bargain set out at Tokyo. Afghanistan has agreed to address issues around human rights, the rights of women and the ingrained nature of corruption in Afghan society, and the international community in exchange has offered to provide ongoing financial support. The Afghan Government have to deliver on their side of the bargain.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In relation to the peace talks in Pakistan between the Government of Pakistan and the Taliban, he will know that the previous talks were scuppered on 2 November, when Mr Mehsud was taken out by a United States drone strike, and on 30 May 2013, when Mr Waliur Rehman, a Taliban leader, was also taken out by a United States drone strike. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that discussions will be had with our international allies about not using drone strikes in Pakistan, as they may scupper talks again and undermine the authority of the Government of Pakistan and our relationship with that country when we need to be strengthening it?

Philip Hammond: I think our allies are aware of the importance of at least exploring the possibility of some kind of negotiated settlement with the Pakistan Taliban in North Waziristan. I observe that there appears to be a space being allowed for these negotiations to progress, but that space will not remain open for ever, and I hope the parties will do everything in their power to reach a conclusion rapidly.

James Morris: I welcome the statement. The Secretary of State was right to refer to the importance of the forthcoming presidential election in Afghanistan, and the importance of the Afghan security forces’ taking responsibility for the security arrangements. Can he say a little more about the £20 million of UK money that he mentioned, and about what it will be used for as part of that security operation?

Philip Hammond: It is not directly designed to support the security operation; it is designed to support the good administration of the elections. We have also
	allocated funds to increasing the participation of female candidates, and providing the training and capacity building that will enable more of them to take part in the election.

John Glen: Given the unfortunate gap between our hopes and aspirations and the time taken to achieve our goals in Afghanistan, can my right hon. Friend tell us why he is so sure that Afghan forces possess enough resilience to handle the expected intensification of violence at the end of 2014? In what circumstances would the supporting role of British troops intensify after that date to ensure that this country’s sacrifices were not wasted?

Philip Hammond: As the House would expect, I make my judgments about military matters—in particular, the resilience and capability or otherwise of any particular forces—on the basis of military advice, and that is the military advice that I am receiving. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend is necessarily right in seeing nothing but a reinforcement of the insurgency after the end of 2014. On the one hand, ISAF will not be present in the same numbers or in the same role, but on the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the presence of foreign forces has been one of the great recruiting sergeants of the insurgency, and that the removal of foreign forces changes the dynamics. There are definitely Afghans who would have signed up to the insurgency to fight foreign soldiers but do not wish to join up and kill their Afghan brothers in the ANSF.

Eleanor Laing: Finally, I call the very patient Mr Stephen Mosley.

Stephen Mosley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The smooth transition of power after the election is crucial to the long-term future of the country. Is my right hon. Friend convinced that all the main candidates broadly support the policy directions followed by President Karzai, and, in principle at least, support the bilateral security agreement?

Philip Hammond: President Karzai is not currently indicating a willingness to sign the agreement. I think our assessment is that all the candidates appear to support it, and that all of them—as would be expected in a democratic election—are committed to the constitutional settlement in Afghanistan.

Points of Order

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituent Margaret McNiffe has been denied her disability living allowance because her claim was considered 24 hours late, although the Department for Work and Pensions had sent the paperwork to the wrong address. She is now losing the car on which she relies to get to work, and is forced to use taxis, at great expense, in order to get around. Do you know whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has any plans to come to the House to announce a review of the callous and unfair way in which his Department is doing business, causing much distress to people such as my constituent, and costing the country more than it should? Alternatively, can you offer me some advice on how I can right this injustice?

Eleanor Laing: I think the hon. Gentleman and the House are well aware that that is not a point of order to be dealt with by the Chair at this time. However, I am sure that the House has every sympathy for the lady in question. I have not at this point received an intimation that any Secretary of State plans to come to the House to deal with the matter, but there are many occasions on which such matters are dealt with by Ministers, and I am certain that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be noted by those who ought to note it. He may wish to seek advice on pursuing the case via parliamentary questions or, perhaps, an Adjournment debate.

Richard Benyon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the earlier urgent question on floods I mentioned the River Kennet. As I have interests that adjoin the River Kennet, I should have referred hon. Members to my entry in the register. I apologise for not having done so, and I am advised that this is a good opportunity to make up for my earlier omission.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has indeed now made that point and it is now noted.

Children and Families Bill (Programme No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83(A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Children and Families Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 25 February 2013 in the last Session of Parliament (Children and Families Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 15 April 2013 in that Session (Children and Families Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Nos. 125, 121 to 124 and 150 Ninety minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments 
			 Nos. 1 to 120, 126 to 149 and 151 to 176 Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings 
		
	
	Subsequent Stages
	(4) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(5) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

Children and Families Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Eleanor Laing: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a large number of Lords amendments, which are listed in the notes on the Order Paper. If the House agrees to any of them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
	New Clause

Protection of Children’s Health: Offence of Smoking in a Private Vehicle

Jane Ellison: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 125.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 121 to 123.
	Lords amendment 124 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto.
	Lords amendment 150.

Jane Ellison: I am very pleased to speak to this package of Government amendments aimed at protecting young people from tobacco and nicotine addiction. I will also speak to the amendment on smoking in cars carrying children, which was agreed in another place.
	I am sure that I need not remind hon. Members that tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of death, accounting for nearly 80,000 premature deaths per year in England alone and being a contributory factor in many other aspects of poor health. Taking action to prevent young people from taking up smoking in the first place is vital in our efforts to reduce rates of smoking.
	When I first became the Minister responsible for public health I was made very aware of just how critical the teenage years are in smoking addiction, and that came up repeatedly in a Backbench Business Committee debate at the time. Almost two-thirds of smokers take up smoking regularly before they are 18—that is, they were addicted before becoming adults. That is a shocking reality, which many hon. Members have spoken about in this Chamber.
	Stopping smoking can be extremely difficult because the addiction is so powerful. While two-thirds of smokers say that they want to quit, only a small fraction succeed in doing so. That is why we must stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. We want to see our young people enter an adulthood that is healthy and long-lived, but half of all long-term smokers will die from a smoking-related disease.
	The amendments we have introduced seek to do the following: introduce regulation-making powers to enable the Government to bring in standardised tobacco packaging, if such a decision is made; introduce regulation-making powers to prohibit the sale of nicotine products to people under the age of 18; and to create a new offence of the proxy purchasing of tobacco. Also returning
	to this House from another place is an amendment which would provide the Government with regulation-making powers on smoking in cars carrying children, which is for hon. Members to consider.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is she saying that the Government are agreeing with the Lords amendment to ban smoking in vehicles because that is what she wants to see achieved, or is she saying that the Government are agreeing with the Lords amendment because it is a passive one and even if passed by this House she intends to ignore it?

Jane Ellison: Actually it is neither of those two things. Technical amendments are needed to the wording of what was passed in another place and the Government’s view was that the House needed the chance to consider something that was legally workable. I will cover that in a bit more detail later.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Minister not agree that this is actually premature and that we should await the outcome of the Sir Cyril Chantler review? That is an independent review and we should not try to shape his opinion in advance of it. In a famous statement in this House on 12 July last year—a date I will always remember—it was made clear that this was about gathering evidence. Surely we should await the gathering of evidence before we put legislation in place that will allow the implementation of something for which there may not be sufficient evidence.

Jane Ellison: I will discuss that point in more detail in a moment. We have had these discussions before. The Government are seeking regulation-making powers, but we will await the outcome of the independent Chantler review. Ministers will take all other factors into consideration at that time before making a decision.
	I want to set out the key elements of the Government amendments. Let me start with standardised tobacco packaging. As I told the House on 28 November last year, we have asked Sir Cyril Chantler for an independent view of the public health evidence on standardised packaging of tobacco products. Sir Cyril’s report is due in March. During debates in the House, many hon. Members have told me that the evidence base for standardised packaging continues to grow. The Government will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised by this policy, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to do so, including public health benefit.
	We have therefore introduced provisions that would give Ministers the power to make regulations to standardise the packaging of tobacco products, should a decision be taken by the Government to do so. Ministers would be able to regulate internal and external packaging and any other associated materials included with a tobacco product, including the cellophane or other outer wrapper of a cigarette pack. The powers will extend to other forms of tobacco such as hand-rolling tobacco.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Minister has touched on two important points. One involves the packaging rights of companies. Is there anything in the legislation that would enable compensation to be granted to those companies if the
	Government chose to remove their trademarks and branding rights? I understand that, under European law, billions of pounds of compensation could be payable in those circumstances. Secondly, will the Minister clarify whether the Chantler review—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but I am sure that he will wish to be brief, as many people wish to speak in the debate.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I apologise for the longevity of my intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but these important issues affect many jobs in my constituency. My second point involves the illicit trade in tobacco products. Will the Minister tell us whether that will be covered by the Chantler review?

Jane Ellison: As I said in my earlier statement to the House, the Chantler review is looking specifically at the public health aspects of these matters. Sir Cyril is perfectly free to look at whatever he wants, but those are his terms of reference. Other issues will be considered in the round when Ministers come to make their decisions. Those issues were of course fully explored during the consultation that took place before the review.
	The amendment sets out the elements of tobacco packaging that could be regulated—for example, the use of colour, branding or logos, the materials used and the texture, size and shape of the packaging. It also sets out the aspects of the tobacco product itself that could be regulated.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend will know that one of the main scourges for young people is alcohol. Why are the Government not proposing standardised packaging for alcohol?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but that is probably a debate for another time.
	The Government would not necessarily use all the powers I have just described, and if we proceed, we will need to decide which aspects would be included in any regulations. However, it is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now, so that we are prepared for the future.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend will know that every packet of cigarettes carries the bold message “Smoking kills”. However, that does not influence the purchasing habits of smokers. There is also no evidence yet that the appearance of a cigarette packet will deter anyone from smoking.

Jane Ellison: This is a matter for the Chantler review; it is one of the things we have asked Sir Cyril to look at. I am not going to second guess the outcome of his review.

Anne Main: Will the Minister clarify a point that she has just made? I understood, perhaps wrongly, that she said that the Government were getting these powers into their armoury in case they needed to be used. Are the Government putting
	these measures into legislation for potential future use, rather than because there is evidence of a need for them now?

Jane Ellison: This question came up in the other place, and we have always made it clear that we are seeking the power to make regulations in the event that the Government should decide to proceed with standardised packaging, having received the Chantler review and considered everything in the round. Making the decision on those powers now would enable us to proceed apace at that point. I hope that that clarifies the matter for my hon. Friend.
	As I was saying, the Government would not necessarily use all the powers I have just described, and if we proceed, we will need to decide which aspects would be included in any regulations. The House would have the chance to comment further on the matter, through the affirmative resolution procedure, were the Government to decide to go ahead. It is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now, however, so that we can be prepared for the future.

Geraint Davies: Having had a background in multinational brand management, I know why multinationals invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in brand graphics and mnemonics to exaggerate sales. Does the Minister not agree that that proves that blank or standardised packaging would have an impact on sales?

Jane Ellison: That is for the review to comment on. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I am not trying to be unhelpful in not responding in detail to their interventions. We have put in place a process that we think will be the most robust way of making policy in this area, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not commenting in detail on his point. I am sure that the review is looking in detail at all these aspects; they were certainly explored during the consultation.

David Nuttall: Just to finish this point off, will the Minister make it clear that she and her colleagues will consider a wider range of factors alongside the outcome of the review before deciding how to proceed?

Jane Ellison: That is something we have put on record a number of times, and I can confirm it again tonight. We have always said that Ministers would proceed having received the review and given consideration to all the wider aspects of the policy. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
	The requirements would apply only to the retail packaging of tobacco products, which means the packaging that will be, or is intended to be, used when the product is sold to the public. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers would still be able to use branding such as logos and colours on packaging, provided that they were used only within the tobacco trade—for example, on boxes used for stock management in a warehouse that are not seen by the public.
	These provisions would apply on a UK-wide basis, as the necessary legislative consent motions have been secured. As I have already said, I will not pre-empt the outcome of Sir Cyril’s review or of the decision-making
	process, but these provisions mean that we would be able to act without delay if we were to decide to go ahead. I want to emphasise that Sir Cyril will not be making the decision for Ministers on whether to proceed with standardised packaging. That decision will be made by Ministers in the light of the wide range of relevant considerations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has tabled three amendments on standardised packaging. The first five clauses of the packaging provisions set out the test that Ministers will need to consider before bringing forward regulations. The regulation-making powers in the Bill will allow Ministers to take a reasonable and balanced view of the available evidence regarding the affect that regulations as a whole would have on the health and welfare of children. This approach to ministerial decision making is absolutely appropriate and these clauses are in keeping with the approach that Minsters would ordinarily take in decision-making processes of this kind.
	My hon. Friend’s three amendments seek to remove the ability of Ministers to take a reasonable and balanced view of the evidence, and we feel that they would put unnecessary and unwarranted constraints on Ministers’ consideration of how any proposed regulations would impact on children’s health or welfare. Constraining Ministers’ decision making in that way would probably have the effect of stopping the use of the powers altogether. For that reason, I do not support my hon. Friend’s amendments. I also remind the House that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	I should like to move on to the age of sale for nicotine products. We have introduced provisions for a regulation-making power to prohibit the sale of nicotine products such as e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18. Public health experts, many retailers—particularly small retailers—and the electronic cigarette industry support the introduction of an age of sale restriction for e-cigarettes. At present, no such general legal restriction is in place, and we want to correct this situation.
	As e-cigarettes are novel products, we have very little evidence on the impact of children using them. For example, we do not know what impact their use might have on the developing lungs of young people. Public health experts have expressed concern to me that nicotine products could act as a gateway into smoking tobacco, as well as undermining efforts to reshape social norms around tobacco use. Young people can rapidly develop nicotine dependence, and nicotine products deliver nicotine and cause addiction. Attempts were made last year to include an age-of-sale provision applicable throughout the EU in the revised European tobacco products directive, but that was not achieved. We therefore want to take this opportunity to put such a provision in place domestically through this Bill.
	The penalty for committing the offence of selling a nicotine product to a person under 18 would be a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale—that is currently £2,500, the same penalty as applies in respect of tobacco. The Government believe it is wrong as a matter of principle to sell nicotine products to children. We have a responsibility to protect children from addiction,
	which is why this provision is important. I welcome the support that the e-cigarette industry and retailers have expressed for it.

Simon Burns: I fully understand and accept what my hon. Friend has said. Do these proposals in any way affect adults who may buy e-cigarettes for people under the age of 18?

Jane Ellison: That is a good point, to which I will return, if my right hon. Friend will allow me. I will consider that and we will have an answer for him.

Anne Main: How does this affect 17-year-olds who have already taken up smoking and wish to try to stop through using e-cigarettes? How would they manage to buy this product?

Jane Ellison: My understanding is that if a nicotine-containing product is licensed for medicinal use—licensed as a quit-smoking tool—it can already be prescribed by doctors. Some e-cigarette manufacturers have already indicated that in order to make a medicinal claim about their product’s ability to help people quit, they will seek to use the medicines regulations. If such a product becomes licensed as a medicine, it will be able to be prescribed as a smoking cessation aid in the same way that other nicotine-containing products can be. I hope that answer is helpful.
	On proxy purchasing, we believe we must take action to address both the supply of and demand for tobacco products among young people if we are to reduce the uptake of smoking. Many retailers over the years have felt a little left alone to bear the burden of enforcement in this area, so I welcome both the work of responsible retailers to ensure that tobacco is not sold to people under the age of 18, and the support provided to them by retailer bodies such as the Association of Convenience Stores. There is support in both Houses for creating a proxy purchase offence for tobacco, and the Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been made. Retailers feel it is unfair that it is an offence for retailers to sell cigarettes to children and young people, yet there is no offence of proxy purchasing on behalf of children and young people. Retailers also feel it is inconsistent to have a proxy purchase offence for alcohol but not for tobacco. The Government want to continue to tackle the access that young people have to tobacco, which is why we have proposed this amendment.
	The provisions would make it an offence for an adult to buy, or attempt to buy, tobacco for someone under the age of 18. That will be enforced by local authority trading standards officers, who will be able to issue a fixed penalty notice if they believe an offence has been committed, rather than taking prosecution action in the first instance. Local authorities will not be required to carry out regular programmes of enforcement in the way they have to on age of sale of tobacco, so we do not believe that this offence will bring into place any significant new regulatory burdens. Local authorities know their communities better than anyone and will know how best to address their public health priorities. We have devolved wide public health responsibilities and ring-fenced budgets to local authorities, and this amendment allows them to take targeted enforcement action on proxy purchasing where they consider it is needed.
	The arguments relating to effective enforcement have been well rehearsed in previous debates. Experience in Scotland suggests that we should not to expect a vast number of convictions, and we should not measure the success of this new offence by the number of prosecutions or fixed penalties issued. I expect, however, that the new offence will generate worthwhile deterrent effects. As I said, in a new public health landscape where more powers are devolved to directors of public health there may be opportunities to explore work where there is a particular local problem.
	Finally, I will address the issue of smoking in private vehicles carrying children. In another place an amendment was agreed to enable the Government to make regulations to make it
	“an offence for any person who drives a private vehicle to fail to prevent smoking in the vehicle when a child or children are present”.
	The amendment we are debating today was drawn up by the Government, with the support of the peers who tabled the initial amendment, to deliver the intention of the amendment in a legally workable way. We have a responsibility to be sure that any amendment that could make its way on to the statute book should work in practice. The technical amendment was agreed on Third Reading in another place.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend says that she wants this to be workable. If a 17-year-old was driving a car and smoking at the same time, but nobody else was in the car, would they be guilty of an offence?

Jane Ellison: We have been discussing the issue earlier today, but we will look in more detail at that sort of detail when the House has voted on the principle of this and we have the view of both Houses. Today, the House is examining the principle, not detailed regulations, which would need to be brought forward and which would be subject to the affirmative resolution.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the Minister helping us to get to the bottom of this. I understand that under rule 148 of The Highway Code a driver is prohibited from smoking, eating, drinking, doing a crossword or listening to a loud radio at the wheel, for very obvious reasons. If that is the case—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we have got the message. The hon. Gentleman has had two interventions. We are going very well, so let us not challenge the Minister too much so early on.

Jane Ellison: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clearly there will be a lively debate about this provision, and I wish to draw my remarks to a conclusion soon—

Simon Kirby: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: I am just responding to another intervention. Let me deal with that one before I take another. Clearly there will be a debate about this provision. The Government have sought to reflect the views expressed in another place by introducing an amendment that is technically
	workable. There will be a debate on it, we will see what the view of the House is and we will take our steer on the principle of the issue having heard the views of both Houses.

Simon Kirby: Will the Minister assure me that if this amendment is passed, it will be only part of the solution and that we should continue to educate people of the dangers of passive smoking?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend anticipates some of my next remarks, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he says.
	The amendment would amend existing smoke-free legislation in the Health Act 2006 to make it clear that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers have the powers to make regulations to provide for a private vehicle to be smoke-free when a person under the age of 18 is present. During the passage of the 2006 Act, Ministers at the time said they did not want to use the powers in that legislation to make private vehicles smoke-free. This amendment, if enacted by Parliament, would make it clear that regulations could be made, if the Government so decided, to prohibit smoking in private vehicles carrying children.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend described this measure as “workable”, but I wonder how she envisages it being enforced. Are we going to have smoking police weaving in and out of the traffic, looking in car windows? There must be a serious answer—how could this be enforced?

Jane Ellison: Enforcement has been the subject of much of the debate in both Houses over a number of years, and clearly the detail of that would be looked at in regulation, if the House is minded to give the Government a steer on the principle of this. So that is not a matter for today’s debate, but I am sure it will be—[Interruption.] It is not for me to comment on the detail of it, but I am sure it will be explored during the debate that follows my speech.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jane Ellison: I am going to give way to someone I have not given way to yet.

Ian Mearns: As with legislation on the use of seatbelts and mobile phones in cars, we will want everyone to abide, but if the vast majority of people abide, it will have a positive impact on the health of children who would otherwise be affected by passive smoking.

Jane Ellison: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the debate to come, during which the Government will listen carefully to the range of views expressed by Members on both sides of the House.

John Leech: When the House decided to ban smoking in pubs and clubs, we were told exactly the same thing—that that would not be enforceable—but it has proved to be perfectly enforceable.

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for putting his view on record. I am sure that we will hear further views in the debate that follows.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: I want to make a bit of progress because I sense that a lively debate will follow my speech, so I want to leave time for that.
	The Government—and all Members—are clear that children should not be exposed to second-hand smoke, which can be particularly harmful to young children, and we know that young people often have little choice about being in places where they are exposed to smoke. Nevertheless, there are obviously many ways of trying to achieve that aim, which takes me on to the point about education raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby).
	We need smokers to protect children not only in the family car, but in any enclosed environment, including the home. Many argue that legislation is the answer, and we will debate that today, but social marketing campaigns to help smokers and parents to understand the risks of second-hand smoke and strongly to encourage voluntary behaviour change are also vital. We would all like to think that the vast majority of parents would not knowingly risk the health of their children. In the event that legislation is introduced to stop smoking in cars carrying children, we should measure its success by not the number of enforcement actions, but by the reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke.
	As I have said, the Government will listen carefully to what Parliament has to say about the important principle of whether we should have the power to legislate to prevent smoking in cars when children are present. We will then consider what needs to happen next, which is why, if hon. Members will forgive me, I am not able to talk in great detail about some of the points that they have raised—they are questions for the next stage, once the will of Parliament has been expressed. However, in any event, I have asked Public Health England to continue its work on behaviour change in this area, including through social marketing campaigns. I have asked it to carry out targeted work with local authorities and public health directors in places where we know that there are problems. When Parliament’s will is known and we can assess the maximum impact that can be achieved through education, we will consider putting in place wider public information campaigns.
	Arguments about effective enforcement were well rehearsed during the passage of this Bill and the consideration of private Member’s Bills on this matter, including that promoted by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I look forward to hearing the debate on smoking in cars with children present and to finding out the will of the House on the principle of the Lords amendment. I also hope that the House will support our proposals on other aspects of tobacco control: the regulation-making powers on standardised packaging; and measures on the age of sale for electronic cigarettes and the proxy purchasing of tobacco.

Luciana Berger: Today the House has the opportunity to vote for a number of measures that will protect children, help to transform attitudes and improve our nation’s public
	health. I am proud to speak in favour of all the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 124, and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will support the Lords amendments in the Lobby.
	It is worth remembering that when the Bill left the House, it did not contain any of the tobacco measures before us today. Those provisions are a credit to those in the other place who successfully argued for them, for which I commend them. The package of measures was passed with a great deal of agreement in the other place, so I hope that we can preserve that consensus in this House.
	While I shall focus my remarks chiefly on smoking in cars carrying children, let me first speak to the other measures in the group. I welcome Lords amendment 124, which deals with the standardised packaging of tobacco products. It must be said that the Government have taken a rather long and winding route to get to here, with a few sharp turns along the way. As we heard from the Minister, the Lords amendment is only an enabling provision, because while it gives Ministers the power to introduce standardised packaging, we have no 100% assurance that that will happen. It is no secret that the Opposition would prefer more immediate action, but it is good that we finally see legislation in black and white. Labour Members sincerely hope that, once Sir Cyril has reported, Ministers will do the right thing and use the power. Will the Minister update us on when Sir Cyril will report? Will she guarantee that if he does recommend standardised packaging for tobacco products, secondary legislation will be brought forward before the general election?

Anne Main: I shall keep my intervention brief because many hon. Members wish to speak and we do not have much time. The Minister and the hon. Lady have talked about smoking in cars, but Lords amendment 125 refers to smoking in a “private vehicle”, which means that it will cover any vehicle, including motorised homes. We need to be absolutely clear that any vehicle will be affected, not just cars.

Luciana Berger: I shall come on to talk about measures on vehicles which were introduced in the 2006 Act. Lords amendment 125 refers specifically to private vehicles.
	I also welcome Lords amendments 122 and 123, which deal with nicotine-containing products. I agree with the Minister that it is sensible to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s. E-cigarettes can help smokers who are trying to quit, but they should not be available to children, especially when there are so many question marks about the long-term health effects of nicotine and when concern has been expressed that e-cigs might act as gateway products that could lead some young people to take up tobacco smoking.
	I am especially pleased to support Lords amendment 121, on proxy purchasing, which will prevent adults from buying cigarettes on behalf of children. Labour proposed that policy by tabling amendments in the other place last year. It is already illegal to buy alcohol on behalf of under-age children, so it does not make sense that the same offence does not apply to tobacco products given that, if they are used as directed, they
	kill half of all lifetime smokers. I am glad that the Government now agree with us, but I hope that the Minister will be able to share with hon. Members the Government’s rationale for introducing a maximum fine of £2,500, given that the equivalent penalty for the alcohol offence is £5,000.
	Let me turn to Lords amendment 125 and the question of protecting children from adults smoking in cars. I pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned for such a measure, especially the British Lung Foundation and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I also applaud my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who tabled the original amendment. Since that amendment was successfully passed, the Government have laid out how that Labour proposal could be written into law. In the final analysis, the decision before the House comes down to a simple question: if we know beyond doubt that passive smoking in an enclosed space can do serious harm to a person’s health and that hundreds of thousands of children are being subjected to passive smoking in a car every single week, and if we know from our experience of similar laws passed in this country and others that legislation can have a major impact by changing behaviour and improving public health, should we act and do something, or stand by and do nothing? We say that we cannot afford not to act.

Tim Loughton: By that same token, does the hon. Lady concede that we should criminalise pregnant women who smoke, on the basis that their child is in an even more confined space than a car?

Luciana Berger: We are considering a specific provision, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to bring forward further measures, I am sure that the House would wish to debate them. We are talking about children who do not have a choice when travelling in a car.
	We all know the dangers of passive smoking, but the reality is that its worst consequences are inflicted predominantly on the very youngest in our society. Children are especially vulnerable to the dangers because they have smaller lungs and faster breathing rates than adults.

David Winnick: While it is easy for opponents to make a mockery of the suggestion —no doubt we will hear a great deal more of that this evening—has not the House of Commons a responsibility to do everything possible to protect children from the effects of smoking? If the proposal can work, it is at least worth a try.

Luciana Berger: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are up against time and a lot of Members want to speak, so I would be grateful if we could move on as quickly as possible.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises a point that I am seeking to make in my contribution: we have an opportunity to do something, so I hope that Members will support the Lords amendment in the Lobby tonight.
	Bronchitis, asthma, meningitis, glue ear, the common cold and reduced lung function are just some of the many respiratory illnesses that can be suffered by children as a result of passive smoking.

Gerald Howarth: If smoking is so damaging to children’s health, surely the logic of the hon. Lady’s argument is that we should ban smoking in people’s homes.

Luciana Berger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will talk later about the toxicity of smoke in an enclosed vehicle, because many studies have shown that children are susceptible to passive smoke in the back of a car in a way that they are not in a building or in the home.
	Each year around 300,000 GP appointments are attended as a direct result of children suffering from illnesses linked to passive smoking, 10,000 have to be admitted to hospital and, according to a 2010 report by the Royal College of Physicians, roughly 40 families lose infants to sudden cot deaths. If the health and tragic human costs were not justification enough, it is estimated that treating children for the effects of passive smoking costs our NHS some £23 million every single year.

Mark Tami: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Luciana Berger: I will give way one more time.

Mark Tami: I am old enough to remember when it used to be okay to smoke on underground trains and on planes. Does my hon. Friend agree that society has moved on and that this proposal is just part of that?

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I will mention some of the comments that children have made about that and outline why young people feel so strongly about this important measure.
	A significant proportion of the effects of passive smoking felt by children are linked to passive smoking in a car, not least because—this relates to the intervention made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main)—tobacco smoke in a small, enclosed car can create levels of pollution that are up to 35 times greater than the level deemed safe by the World Health Organisation. A single cigarette in a car can create concentrations of smoke up to 11 times greater than those in a smoky pub of old.
	We are not talking about a small number of cases. Many people have contacted me in recent days, some of them suffering from many of the conditions I have mentioned, including asthma, to say that they wish a ban had been introduced when they were children. Other people have said in recent weeks, “Surely no adult smokes in a car with children.” Unfortunately, according to the British Lung Foundation, nearly half a million children are exposed to potentially toxic levels of smoke in cars every single week. That number is based on children aged between 11 and 15. If we take babies, infants and primary school children into account as well, the number is likely to be even higher. According to a study by SmokeFree Sports in Liverpool, the area I represent, around a quarter of nine and 10-year-olds reported being exposed to smoking in cars.
	That brings to the crux of my argument about why the proposal is justified. This is about children, who often do not have a choice about how they travel and cannot speak out. In 2010, a third of children surveyed said that they were too frightened or embarrassed to ask an adult not to smoke with them in the car. If we want to protect future generations from the dangers of smoking, we need a comprehensive approach.
	I agree with the Minister when she says that we need better education and that we have to improve public awareness. Adults and parents have a duty to act responsibly, but we know from experience that when education is accompanied by legislation, it can help bring about profound changes in behaviour. That is why we already have laws on what people can and cannot do in cars, from not using mobile phones at the wheel to compulsory use of car seats for children under the age of five. It is why our existing smoke-free legislation already makes it illegal to smoke in the workplace or in public vehicles. The proposal to protect children from smoking in cars would build on that precedent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Luciana Berger: I am not going to take any more interventions, because many Members have prepared speeches and wish to contribute to the debate.
	The proposal has the overwhelming support of royal colleges, health experts and leading authorities on public health from across our country. In the past week alone, 700 doctors have written to the British Medical Journal in support of a ban on smoking in cars with children. YouGov polls have shown that the measure enjoys the support of up to 80% of the public. It also has the support of the Liverpool Schools’ Parliament, which voted for such a ban unanimously. Many colleagues who have visited schools in recent days have encountered similar enthusiasm from young people.
	To those who say that this law would be unenforceable, unworkable or a dreadful infringement of civil liberty, let me offer this thought: 38 years ago this month this House debated a law that would make a certain behaviour in a car illegal, and Government Members were granted a free vote. There was general agreement about health and safety, but Members raised concerns about whether it would be enforceable or a step too far. One Member said that it was a mark of the fact that
	“as a society we are becoming over-governed and over-regulated.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1006.]
	Despite that, the proposal passed that night with a convincing majority and eventually became law. More than 30 years on, no one is arguing that we should repeal the law that made it compulsory to wear a seat belt. In the same way, few people would argue that we should bring back smoking in enclosed public spaces or on the London underground. In the meantime, the proportion of motorists wearing a seat belt has risen from around 25% to over 90%. It shows just how powerful the effect can be when Parliament unites and sends a signal. We have such an opportunity before us today. This is a matter of child protection, not adult choice.
	Members across the House will be familiar with the words of the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill. He prized liberty above all else, but even he accepted that a civilized society should exert influence over an
	individual in order to prevent harm to others. This is a simple and straightforward measure that would make a world of difference to hundreds of thousands of children across our country, reducing the misery inflicted by passive smoking, saving millions of pounds for our NHS and protecting children who do not have a choice and do not have a voice, and who in 20 years’ time, I am sure, will wonder how it was ever allowed in the first place. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House will support the measure today.

Philip Davies: I have no quibble at all with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who represents the smug, patronising excesses of new Labour. They think that the only reason they came into Parliament was to ban everybody else from doing all the things that they happen not to like. What perturbs me is that Conservative Ministers appear not to have grasped the concept, even though they claim to be Conservatives, that we can disapprove of something without banning it. This is just another in the long line of triumphs for the nanny state.
	I will not give way because I want to rattle through what I have to say in order to give other Members an opportunity to speak. I believe that parents are much better placed to decide what is best for their children than the state is. If we want to encourage parents to take responsibility for their children, we have to give them that responsibility. We will never get parents to do that if the Government say, “Don’t worry about taking responsibility for your children, because we will make all the relevant decisions for you. You don’t have to worry about anything.” That is not something we should be encouraging.
	The Conservative party used to believe in the rights of private property, and that people could do as they pleased in their own private property. Their private vehicle is their own private property. If people wish to smoke in a car with children, that is a decision for them to take. As Conservatives, we should not interfere with that.
	Members have talked about small and confined places and about restricting the proposal to private vehicles, so why not caravans? I know that Labour Members are not going to ask their friends in the Gypsy community to stop smoking in caravans, so we will never have the prospect of that happening. What is the difference between a caravan and a small car? What is the difference between a small, confined flat and an open-top car? Why is it worse for people to smoke in an open-top car than in a confined flat or a caravan? Why is one much more of a danger to health than the other? This in no way reflects the fact that most car journeys are very short. Why do Labour Members think it is an absolute outrage and terribly dangerous for somebody’s child if they smoke in a two-minute car journey but absolutely fine for them to smoke for hour after hour in a caravan that is, in many cases, just as much of a confined space? The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
	We all know where this is going to end up. The people at Action on Smoking and Health, who appear to be the only people the Department of Health listens to, are not going to hand over their company car keys when this measure gets passed tonight—they will be campaigning
	for the next one, which is of course to get smoking banned in everybody’s homes as well. Once we have agreed to the principle of banning smoking in people’s private cars, how on earth can we logically say that there is a great difference regarding people’s homes? Of course, we cannot. We all know that this will end up in people’s homes and caravans, and all the rest of it.

David Winnick: rose—

Philip Davies: I have said I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman can listen for once.
	Moreover, this is totally and utterly unenforceable. What on earth are we doing saying to the police, whose resources are already stretched, that all of a sudden this should be a new priority for them to undertake? Have they got nothing better to do than go up as close as they can to a moving car to see whether there happens to be a small child in the back seat? Of course, this is not just about small children but all children. How on earth does the driver prove that the person in the back of the car is over 18 rather than under 18? What happens when the driver throws the cigarette away and the police have to try to prove whether they were smoking when they were pulled over? The whole thing is completely unenforceable. It is gesture politics of the worst kind, with Ministers and shadow Ministers trying to flex their health zealotry at all these health organisations and saying, “We’re tougher on these matters than the others.”
	Standardised packaging—it is not plain packaging, as some people say—is also nonsense. In many cases, the standardised packaging is more colourful than the existing packaging, so this measure will not do anything for the people who say that all the colourful packaging encourages people to smoke. It is already the case that cigarettes cannot be displayed in large shops. What on earth is the point of having plain packaging for products that are already behind a counter and cannot even be seen? Again, the whole thing is complete nonsense.
	All these arguments are arguments for banning smoking altogether. If people had the courage of their convictions and said, “We should ban smoking altogether”, I would at least have some respect for them, but they dare not say that that is what they want to do, even though we know it is their real agenda. While cigarettes are a legal product, brands should be free to use their own branding on the packs. Standardised packaging would simply be a triumph of the nanny state that would presumably soon be followed by plain packaging for alcohol, sweets, crisps, and all the foods that supposedly lead to obesity. Once we have gone down this road for one thing, why would we not have plain packaging for everything? We know, particularly given the current Ministers and shadow Ministers, that that is what it would quickly lead to.
	I have tabled three amendments to Lords amendment 124 to try to make it more sensible. The Lords amendment states that the Secretary of State can make regulations if he believes that they
	“may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to…the health or welfare of”
	children—I repeat, “may” contribute. This gives the Secretary of State the authority to make a decision on a whim just because he happens to think that it might make a difference. My first amendment would change “may” to “will” so that he would need to have some evidence for making a change rather than just doing it on a whim.
	The second amendment relates to regulations. Under Lords amendment 124, the Government are saying that they can make lots of provisions and as long as some of them are capable of having a positive effect, that is fine. They can propose 10 ridiculous things and two sensible ones, and the regulations allow them to do it as long as some of them are sensible. My amendment says that “each” provision that they want to bring in should be capable of making a difference, not just the odd one or two in a whole series.
	The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms. It makes me wonder what is the difference between having Labour or this Government in charge. I expect no better from Labour, but I did expect an awful lot better from a supposedly Conservative-led Government.

Kevin Barron: Listening to this debate, I could have heard the same things said in 2006 when the House came to a decision on smoking in public places. That is public health legislation which the Prime Minister says is good legislation, although he did not vote for it at the time. I hope that Members will bear that in mind.
	I hope that Members will also bear in mind, as we always must when considering such legislation, that currently in the UK over 100,000 people a year die prematurely from smoking tobacco. I support the amendment, which will, I hope, further restrict the use of tobacco not just by young people but, in turn, by adults. As the Minister said, two thirds of people who start smoking are young when they do so, and it is addictive.
	One of my points relates to what the Minister said about e-cigarettes not being sold to people under the age of 18. Some people argue that e-cigarettes are a gateway to tobacco use, but the organisation that I have worked with on this over many years—Action on Smoking and Health, which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) clearly admires—says that there is no firm evidence for that at this stage; it is doing another survey this year. The important thing is that over 2 million people are using e-cigarettes, some of them so that they smoke less tobacco and some so that they smoke no tobacco. I agree with the Minister that we should view them as a medicinal product—as part of the family of nicotine replacement therapies. That should be our approach in stopping these awful deaths from smoking. VAT on nicotine replacement therapy products is currently 5%. If e-cigarettes were also licensed and charged at the same rate, that would benefit everybody.
	I support what the Minister said about proxy purchasing. This has not yet been addressed and it should have been. Alcohol and tobacco are harmful, depending on how they are used, although alcohol is not as bad as tobacco.
	We have debated standardised packaging many times in the House and heard the arguments about printers being affected, and so on. The hon. Member for Shipley
	said that standardised packages are very complicated, and of course they are. I hope that we will have better safeguards to stop people engaging in contraband activities. There is no way that this measure will do anything other than stop people advertising on cigarette packets the products that cause all these premature deaths.
	I support the Government and the Opposition on banning smoking in cars with children. Enforcement is always an issue, and we accept that. When I first started driving, people had to have seat belts in cars but did not have to wear them, and only one person in four did so. When the law was changed, 90% of people started wearing them practically overnight. This is about changing habits. We could not have a worse situation than somebody in a confined space like a car smoking cigarettes when children are there.
	Everybody said that the ban on smoking in public places would never be enforced. I was on the Health Committee when we had that debate and we went to Dublin to look at what had happened in Ireland. A guy there tried to get publicity by saying, “I’m going to be smoking in this pub tonight. Will you come down and get me?” However, there were very few problems with enforcement and the same is true of us now. We have not seen all the details, but, as far as I am concerned, the provision is a further step towards protecting young people and future generations from premature death as a result of ill health, and we should support that.

Charles Walker: My concern about the Lords amendment is that we are in danger of criminalising otherwise very loving parents. We should guard against that. It would be appalling if people who have been good parents in every other way found themselves being criminalised as a result of smoking in a car when their children were present.
	I hear the argument about seat belts and it is perfectly and entirely reasonable for the Government to set the terms of their use on the road. If the Government decide that someone who wants to drive on a road has to wear a seat belt, that is highly reasonable. I suggest that, if the Government really are determined to press ahead with banning smoking in cars, that is exactly what they should do: they should ban the consumption of alcohol in cars by any person of any age and ban smoking in cars by any person of any age. That would be a much more honest approach, because, as I have said, if we go down this road we will be criminalising hundreds of thousands of parents. Will a repeat offender—someone who has been penalised three or four times—have their children taken into care because they are deemed to be an abusive parent?
	There is an enormous degree of hypocrisy in this House. I am pleased to say that I am a teetotal non-smoker. There are many people in this place who want to ban smoking because they think it is not done by very nice people, but they are much more relaxed about alcohol because of their own habits. If Members are genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they need to realise that alcohol is the problem, not tobacco. Hundreds of thousands of children have their lives blighted by alcoholic parents and the problems associated with alcohol, yet we never talk about that in this House,
	because some Members think, “We, as nice people, drink.” I am extremely concerned about the direction of travel.
	My final point—I know that others want to speak—is that we will drive another wedge between the police and those they are policing if we implement this provision. It is nonsense. We will expect the police to intervene and that will further widen the gap between them and those they are policing. That should be avoided and we should be very careful about widening that gap.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Like a number of Members, I am deeply concerned that this provision means that Parliament will slowly but surely become a farce. If Parliament wants to start legislating on issues for reasons of good public relations, this provision is a good idea. However, if we peel it back and look at the evidence, we will see that it is not essential.
	We should take time to reflect on the evidence in favour of the Lords amendments. On legislating to prevent people from smoking in cars when children are present, let us be clear that the law, under rule 148 of The Highway Code, currently prevents a driver from smoking in any vehicle. He or she should not smoke in any vehicle when driving, so Lords amendment 125 is about the behaviour of passengers and not necessarily that of the driver. That will make it even more difficult for the enforcer—the police officer—to determine the actions and age of those smoking in a vehicle. We should be in the business of making good, sound and solid legislation, and I do not believe that this provision has been properly thought out. It should be taken back to the drawing board and we should consider who the passenger is and who the provision will affect.
	The issue of enforcement is utterly critical, because the police are already not properly resourced to do the job they are currently asked to do in combating real criminals. If we set up another criminal class in the community, we will have to ask the police to go after them. Some police officers will take great joy in going after a soft-touch conviction, but that is missing the point and we have to recognise that the police would not have sufficient resources to tackle the issue.
	The crux of the matter is: how many people actually engage in smoking in a vehicle when there is a child present? All we have heard from Members on both Front Benches is a guesstimate, not facts. When New Zealand carried out a similar action, it found that 0.13% of people smoked in a vehicle with a child present. We are asking this nation to legislate on something that is an incredibly minor problem.

Robert Buckland: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about rule 148 of The Highway Code. It is, in fact, only advisory with regard to avoiding distractions such as smoking and playing loud music in vehicles. It is not mandatory in the sense the hon. Gentleman might have been suggesting.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I was not suggesting that it was mandatory, but it does say that people should not do it. Rule 148 is very clear that people should not do a crossword, read a map, eat a sandwich or smoke while driving.
	That takes us back to the crux of the matter. A person who lights up and smokes in front of a child—I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this—is a prat, in my view, and we as a House should not be legislating on that, but educating. What we should really be engaging in is educating people. We do not require legislation to educate people not to be prats and to be sensible.
	The number of people involved is miniscule, so is it right that this House is taking time, money and effort to legislate on such a minor problem? I do not believe it is.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman says that the number of people smoking in cars with children present is miniscule, but he has produced no evidence to back that up in relation to the UK. If the number is so miniscule, why is the provision so disproportionate and excessive and how would it make enforcement impossible in the way he suggests?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Let me take one of the facts raised by Labour tonight. According to tobacco consumption rates in the United Kingdom, 22% of people smoke in the Liverpool district, but according to the statistic put in front of us tonight, 25% of all children are subject to being in front of smokers. The number of people smoking is, therefore, higher than the Government statistics show. We need more clarity on the stats being put about by Members on both sides of the House. Labour and Government Front Benchers should wait, as they said they would in November, for the outcome of the Cyril Chantler independent review. If we wait for the gathering of evidence that we can all accept, we will be in a much stronger position to make the decision we are making tonight.
	I am also concerned about the plain packaging measures, which will decimate an industry. There is not sufficient evidence to show that they will do what everyone wants them to do, which is to stop people smoking. A pound store I visited sells boxes for people to put their fags in. It is even possible to get ones that say “Vote Labour” or “Vote Conservative” on them. Believe you me, Mr Deputy Speaker: whenever cigarettes are sold in the future under this provision, these boxes will be given out freely by certain companies because they will take away the one warning that we do know is important, which is that smoking kills. Tonight we are putting in place an opportunity for people to cover cigarettes with no warning whatsoever.
	The biggest problem that this country faces on tobacco is the illicit trade: 25% of all cigarettes smoked in the United Kingdom tonight will have been smuggled by criminals. We as a House should do something, on a united basis, to wipe out such criminal empires, instead of making it easy for them by giving them plain cigarette packages that are simpler to print, smuggle and get into the hands of children. That should be our real cause and health concern.

Andrew Selous: I rise to support Lords amendment 125 for the very simple reason that children have no choice about getting into a car. Every day, up and down this country, children are told to get into a car by their parents or guardians; they have no choice. I think that we should operate on the basis of the “Do no harm” principle. The facts are clear: 165,000 incidents of childhood disease are caused
	every year by passive smoking. Not all car journeys are short: a close family member of mine was made to get into a car and to travel many hours to go on holiday while a pipe was smoked in the car. Despite protests, that pipe continued to be smoked.
	On enforcement, many laws are not properly enforced—like all hon. Members, I want full enforcement—but is anyone saying that we should abandon the law against driving while holding a mobile to one’s ear because it is not always properly enforced? I have written to my police force to ask how many convictions they have had for people holding a phone to their ear.
	Yes, in a perfect world we would change this situation through education, and of course we should refrain from banning things unless we have to, but the fact is that too many children—an estimated 185,000 every day—have to put up with it. Against their will—they have no choice—they are told to get into a small metal unit. We are here to speak up for those who have no voice, which is why I am proud to support the measure tonight.

Alex Cunningham: I quote:
	“I would ban smoking in cars where children are present. I would do that for the protection of children. I believe in protecting children. I would see it as a child welfare issue.”
	Those were precisely my feelings when I introduced the Smoking in Private Vehicles Bill under the ten-minute rule exactly 964 days ago. I did so after a briefing from the British Lung Foundation, with which I have been proud to work ever since. My thoughts have not changed in the two and a half years since, and I am delighted that the day has come when hon. Members have the opportunity for a decisive vote to make life healthier for half a million children. Although I share the sentiment and could hardly have put it better myself, the words I started with are not mine; they date from February this year and are those of the then public health Minister, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
	In Committee in the other place, an amendment was tabled and supported by all political parties, with eight peers speaking in favour of the ban. Such is the cross-party nature of the measure. This will be the fourth time that Members of this House have asked for a definitive vote on the issue. After my ten-minute rule Bill failed to get a Second Reading, the noble Lord Ribeiro’s private Member’s Bill won support in the other place but failed to make progress in the Commons. In this Chamber, we tried to amend this Bill, but we failed again. Now, after sustained pressure from a cross-party group of Back Benchers and Lords, four measures are proposed in the Bill—including powers to bring in standardised packaging of cigarettes and to prevent smoking in cars with children present—and I welcome them all.
	It is not just parliamentarians who support such a ban—quite the opposite. The changes are backed by many professional bodies and research groups. I have been delighted to work closely with other organisations, as well as the British Lung Foundation. The list is too long to name every person and organisation, but it includes Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the British Medical Association, the British Heart Foundation and Fresh, our own campaigning organisation that has done so much in north-east England. We must not forget the royal colleges and the 700 health professionals, who have already been mentioned.
	Facts, figures and statistics in abundance have highlighted the appalling dangers of passive smoking, particularly to children and young people, and specifically in relation to smoking in vehicles. A plethora of studies have returned the same results: smoking in a vehicle significantly increases children’s exposure to harmful toxins and particulates. Numerous surveys and opinion polls have consistently shown that the public support such recommendations. I have no doubt that my fellow Members will draw attention to them as the debate progresses.
	I want to focus on the arguments about enforcement and intrusion. It is important to remember that the police already have a number of duties with regard to private vehicles, and to recognise that the additional enforcement costs of a measure to outlaw smoking when children are present are minimal.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Cunningham: I will not.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned the non-wearing of seatbelts, which is a tricky misdemeanour to spot if ever there was one. It needs an eagle eye, but the police routinely monitor drivers and passengers alike to ensure compliance with the law. The introduction of legislation in 2006 to make the use of appropriate child restraints mandatory for children under the age of 12 were also considered very complex, and similar concerns were raised at the time. However, implementation went ahead and has been successfully enforced.
	To argue that it would be too difficult and burdensome for officers to spot the act of smoking in a car, or to identify whether a child is being carried at the same time, is therefore no excuse. Indeed, I argue that such actions are markedly easier to recognise than gauging the height of a seated child to ascertain whether correct restraints are used. To suggest that officers would be unable to identify such instances is to underestimate their competence. I take much comfort from knowing that when educational campaigns on seatbelts accompanied the legislation, seatbelt use shot up from 25% to 91%, and from knowing that Department of Health figures indicate that there was 98% compliance from the moment the smoke-free legislation was introduced. I hope that the instances of such rules being flouted would be few and far between as a result of Britons’ law-abiding nature. I remain confident that, as with compliance on seatbelts, such regulations would become largely self-enforcing. Let us not forget that it is the role of the police to enforce the law.
	Unlike most adults, children lack the freedom to decide when and how they travel, and do not know how harmful second-hand smoke is. Other hon. Members have already covered that point, so I will not repeat it.
	There are international precedents for action: South Africa, Mauritius and Bahrain have all outlawed smoking in cars with a child present, as have seven of the eight states or territories of Australia, nine—I understand it is soon to become 10—of the 13 states in Canada and six of the 50 states in the United States. One published study from Canada has documented a positive impact on reducing second-hand smoke exposure in the relatively short term after implementation. Positively, it did not
	find any displacement effects of smoking being shifted to the home. It is time that we followed suit, heeded public and medical opinion, and got out of the slow lane.
	I am only too aware that a positive decision for a ban still requires the Government to introduce the necessary regulations. I hope that the Minister will indicate when that is likely. The evidence strongly supports the Lords amendment, and I urge that Members on both sides of the House do likewise and stand up today for the protection of children.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May we have less chatter during speeches. It is getting difficult to hear.

Paul Burstow: I rise to support the Government amendments to put the two regulation-making powers in the Bill, and to support the initiatives taken by Cross Benchers in the other House and by a cross-party group in this House. I speak as chair of the all-party group on smoking and health.
	We have been asked to be clear about the evidence. One area in which the evidence is absolutely clear is that smoking is a childhood addiction, not an adult choice: 40% of smokers are addicted by the age of 16 and two thirds by the age of 18, while 200,000 children take up smoking every year. That is why I strongly support, and urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support, the Lords amendment to provide for the power to regulate and standardise packaging. I do so not least because of the evidence from the tobacco industry’s campaign against it, and from documents released through court cases that have demonstrated that it knows that packaging is a way of driving market share, as well as of driving people to smoke in the first place.
	On passive smoking in cars, both the NHS and the World Health Organisation are very clear about the dangers of second-hand smoke for children. Other hon. Members have already listed that evidence. I do not know where the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was in relation to the data. Every week, 430,000 children aged 11 to 15 are exposed to second-hand smoke in their family cars. That is not their choice. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is absolutely right. This issue is not about a child’s choice, because they have no choice. They have to get into the car if their parents want them to do so.
	The concentration of toxins in a car makes it a significantly different environment from a smoky pub or home. The evidence demonstrates the impact that that environment has on a child’s health. That is where the Millsian test applies. The harm to the child should trigger us to act in the way that I hope the House will act tonight. That is why I support the free vote.
	On enforcement, the laws on smoking in work vehicles, wearing seat belts and using child car seats have been introduced successfully. It has been suggested that we will criminalise parents in some way. We have not criminalised them in relation to child car seats and we will not do so by legislating in this area. There is a clear case for banning smoking in cars when children are present. I hope that the proposed regulations will do just that.
	The Minister spoke about social marketing. I agree that that has a key part to play in the successful implementation of such changes. However, we know that it is not enough. We saw that with the legislation on wearing seat belts. Only 25% of people wore their seat belts before the law changed. Afterwards, the proportion went up to 91%.
	We can debate whether we should replace the words “smoking in cars” with the words “smoking in enclosed public places”. However, the arguments that are made by Government Members are all too often the wrong arguments and they are being left behind by society, which wants us to move again. That is why I support the Lords amendments.

Bill Esterson: Protecting children is one of the most important responsibilities that we have. We know that smoking kills, we know the dangers of passive smoking and we know that children are more at risk than adults from the effects of smoke.
	Half a million children are exposed to potentially toxic levels of second-hand smoke in family cars each week, according to the British Lung Foundation. Children’s lungs are smaller and children have faster breathing rates. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially in a confined space such as a car.
	Children have no choice but to travel in a family car. Would it be good if car drivers, including parents, chose not to smoke when children were present? Absolutely. However, in the case of seat belts, it took a change in the law to ensure that there was a change in behaviour. The proportion of people wearing seat belts went up from 25% to more than 90% after legislation was introduced.
	As I said, protecting children is one of our most important responsibilities. We can exercise that responsibility today. We have to choose between the right of an adult to do as he or she chooses in the privacy of his or her car and the protection of the health of children. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Government Members have rightly agreed that the protection of children is paramount. I hope that all Members will agree that we should make it an offence to smoke in a vehicle when children are present.

Anne Main: I have never heard of a more illiberal, nonsensical and unenforceable proposal than Lords amendment 125. I am sorry that it is being proposed by the Government and that Members are being asked not to consider the detail, because the devil is in the detail.
	As has been said, the word “vehicle” refers to a broad spectrum of containers, if I may put it like that, including motor homes, Traveller caravans and, potentially, narrow boats. The proposal suggests that smoking while driving an open-top car, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred, is more injurious to health than a mother smoking while pregnant. I find that impossible to accept.
	I do not know how the police will arbitrate between two 17-year-olds in a car if one of them has been smoking. I do not think that we should be considering using this resource if we are not banning cigarettes, full stop. I do not smoke and have never smoked. I am a mother of four children. I fundamentally believe that we should not make bad, unenforceable law.
	If the Labour party represented the working class far more than it suggests it does, it would be making a very different argument, because a huge tranche of the population will see itself criminalised. We should be advising people not to smoke in front of their children. We have been winning the argument on smoking. The Government have adverts on the television that show a mum blowing the smoke out of the door and then say, “What if you could see what it does to your child’s lungs?” We will not stop those adverts because we are trying to educate people.
	Under the proposal, we will be saying that a child can get into a fog-filled car after their mum has been smoking in it. As long as she is not still doing it, that will not be an offence. We will be saying that it is an offence to smoke in a van if Traveller children or others who live in transit are sitting in the back. However, if I sit in my kitchen and people can see me through the front window, fag in hand and baby over my shoulder, comforting the child, that will not be an offence. It would be easy to track down such behaviour, so why do we not say that smoking in front of children should be banned or that smoking should be banned? It is because we think that it would be illiberal to go into people’s homes. However, some people’s homes are vehicles. I look forward to people explaining that to the communities that will be affected disproportionately.
	I cannot believe that we are not supposed to inquire about the detail.

Andrew Percy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Main: No, I will not give way because many colleagues who have been here from the very beginning wish to speak. I am sorry if my hon. Friend is one of them.
	I cannot think that this proposal will be enforceable. We all want to protect children. In that case, perhaps we should get out the fat callipers when we see very lardy children walking down our high streets because their parents feed them junk of an evening. Perhaps we should ban fattening foods because there are more than a million people with type 2 diabetes, as has been said in the media today. Where will it stop? We need to educate people. We need to ensure that parents do what is best for their children because they believe in doing what is best for them. We cannot legislate every single risk and danger out of existence.

Steve Reed: I met the school council at Broadmead primary school in Croydon last Friday and I took part in a school assembly at Norbury Manor primary school this morning. I asked the children what they thought of the proposal to ban smoking in cars that are carrying children like them. Every single child supported the ban. When I asked how many of them had been inside a car when an adult was smoking, nearly half the children put their hands up. I asked one little girl what she did when she was in a car and an adult was smoking. She held her nose and told me that she tried not to breathe.
	Although those children hated the experience of being forced to breathe in cigarette smoke, they did not understand the damage that it does to their health. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and other professionals estimate that up to 160,000 children a
	year develop lung diseases, including asthma and bronchitis, as a result of breathing in second-hand cigarette smoke. Developing lungs are far more susceptible to smoke-related disease than adults. That raises the question of why we protect adults in the workplace, on public transport and in pubs from the dangers of second-hand smoke, but subject children to it in cars.
	I have listened carefully to the arguments against this proposal, but I find very little merit in them. The idea that this measure is an example of the illiberal nanny state is misguided. Law making is often about striking a balance between competing rights. On what balance of rights does the right of a smoker to smoke outweigh the right of a child to grow up healthy? I do not accept that an adult should have the right to harm a child who is powerless to protect him or herself. An adult who is in a car with a smoker can get out if they want to. Often, a child cannot.
	To those who say that the measure is unenforceable, I say that we heard exactly the same about the seat belt law. Education in this case has clearly not worked well enough. We need to change behaviour. That requires a strong education campaign but, crucially, that needs to be backed up by law to show how seriously the country takes the issue and to create a sufficiently powerful deterrent.
	We have taken many steps to protect people from passive smoking. Without this further measure, too many children will be left struggling to avoid breathing in smoke in the back of cars and, far worse, could find themselves struggling with lung disease in later life. It is our duty today to act to protect them.

Tim Loughton: I am a veteran of many children’s Bills. Yet again, such a Bill has been hijacked at the 11th hour by a subject that was not part of the original Bill. Usually, the subject is smacking; today, it is smoking.
	I hate, loathe and detest smoking. I do not want any of my children or anybody else’s children to smoke. However, I also hate, loathe and detest the nanny state and its increasingly frenetic and insidious tentacles, which are creeping into individuals’ private lives and spaces.
	I support many other measures that will suppress smoking and reduce the prevalence of smoking. I am for in-your-face, horrific graphics that show people the ghastly things that smoking does to their insides. I am in favour of higher tax. I am in favour of pariah status for people who smoke. I have no problem with the Lords amendments on packaging and on discouraging people from buying tobacco for under-age people.
	However, I am against a measure that yet again undermines the parenting role of parents in favour of the state. The state makes for a poor parent. This measure will criminalise good parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said. People should not smoke in front of their children, whether they are in a car, outside a car, in a house or wherever else, not because the state threatens them with a fine or a criminal record, but because it is a stupid thing to do. I will not quite use the language of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but it is stupid on so many levels. We should have much more empathy towards
	the health and welfare of our children, but we should support parents, not seek to supplant them, as the state has an increasing tendency to do and is trying to do yet again with this amendment.
	If we are serious about this measure, we should have the courage of our convictions and ban smoking altogether. There is only one way that this legislation can go, and the natural conclusion is that there will be a ban on smoking in private homes. As I said earlier—not entirely facetiously—we must face the logic that pregnant women who can do untold damage to their unborn children through smoking and through foetal alcohol syndrome, which affects one in 100 children with very serious consequences, should be criminalised for doing the same thing in principle that this amendment tries to criminalise. Then there are the implications of not feeding our children healthy food. The amendment is unenforceable. It is bad law and is about supplanting, not supporting, the parent, and I cannot support it.

David Winnick: There is the notion that this amendment on the safety of children in cars is an attack on freedom, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) rightly said, a model society will always need to put various restrictions on what individuals can and cannot do.
	Reference has been made to seat belts, and it so happens that I was in the Chamber during the debates on that. I imagine that if the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had been present at the time, he would have argued strongly against compulsory seat belts in cars—of course he would have because when I was listening to him today, I heard the authentic voice of primitive Toryism.

Philip Davies: Thank you!

David Winnick: I do not necessarily work on the assumption that whatever the hon. Member for Shipley opposes I should support, Mr Deputy Speaker, but nevertheless that is usually the case.
	I was also around when we debated banning smoking in most places, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2014, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken?
	I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in cars, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

Bob Blackman: I speak as the secretary of the all-party group on smoking and health. There is only a brief time available, but the facts and figures have been presented to the House. The fact is that the younger people start to smoke, the more damage they do to their health and the shorter their lives as a result. The key point is that most young people start smoking because of their parents, siblings, friends or the media marketing of big tobacco. We need to take away the capability of big tobacco to market to young people, and I support wholeheartedly the measures on standardised packaging. Those opposing measures to stop parents smoking in cars carrying children should understand that a car contains 11 times more tobacco and nicotine than a smoky pub. Even more importantly, if a parent is driving a car with all four windows open, the level of pollution is treble the amount recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency or the World Health Organisation. That is extremely damaging to children’s health, and I support the Lords amendment.
	Ninety minutes having elapsed having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 125.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 376, Noes 107.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 125 agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
	Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 121 to 124 and 150.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 453, Noes 24.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments 121 to 124 and 150 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 121 to 124.

Edward Timpson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 2 to 42.
	Lords amendment 43, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 44 to 72.
	Lords amendment 73, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 74 to 120, 126 to 149 and 151 to 157.
	Lords amendment 158, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 159 to 176.

Edward Timpson: It is a pleasure to set out to the House a number of Lords amendments. The changes will improve our reforms, and make a real and lasting difference for children and families. I hope Members will support them. I will try to be as succinct as possible in explaining each set of amendments.
	As the House will recall, part 1 of the Bill covers adoption, and we have made Lords amendments 1 to 11 to this part. Through Lords amendment 1, we have added a clause that will enable us, by regulation, to ensure that those with a prescribed relationship to people adopted before 30 December 2005 can apply to access intermediary services to facilitate contact with the adopted person’s birth relatives.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister please say whether there will be a presumption in favour of disclosure to children and grandchildren? Specifically, if an adopted person does not wish to have contact with the birth parents, does the amendment state that prescribed persons can go against those wishes?

Edward Timpson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued interest in this important matter. The whole basis of the amendment is to extend the provisions that already exist, so that anyone who wants to make further inquiries, about accessing information or making contact, has to do so through the intermediary services. There is not a presumption, therefore, in that sense. We are looking to go beyond the direct line of descendants from the adopted person, who obviously fall within the prescribed relationship category, and consult on whether we should widen that to others. The provision certainly does not work on the basis that if someone does not want to have contact there is a presumption that that will take place.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is my hon. Friend saying that the intermediary might have more discretion than the adopted person, who may have a different view from the children?

Edward Timpson: The intermediary service is there to ensure that anyone who seeks access does so in a way that does not compromise the position of the person they are seeking either to gain access to or make contact with. That is in line with the approach that already exists, and which works well and successfully. What I can say on the record to reassure my hon. Friend is that this will not force anybody to have contact if they do not wish to do so. Clearly, there will be lots of reasons why people will either want to make contact or have access to records. For example, someone may want to understand the genetic history of direct descendants to see whether there is a prevalent hereditary disease to which they are more prone.
	At this juncture, may I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for his tireless campaigning on this issue, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who has continued his personal interest in pursuing these important changes? I believe that the changes will ensure, where it is appropriate to do so and through the intermediary services, a greater prospect for those who want to establish contact or have access to information, to be able to do so without compromising those who may be also involved.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his generous words. I put on record that many of my constituents, and many
	people from outside my constituency, have contacted me on this matter. I have been able to say to them that this has been Parliament at its best, working with Ministers on this subject. I am grateful to him for the advice and support of his office in moving towards an acceptable solution.

Edward Timpson: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. As he knows, this has been a long-standing issue on which we have sought the advice of the Law Commission and others to establish a way forward. The fact that we can now legislate and implement these provisions represents a good outcome for many people, including his constituents.
	In amendment 2, we have clarified the point at which the fostering for adoption scheme must be considered for a child and established that before a local authority considers placing a child in this way, it must first have considered kinship care and decided that it was not the most appropriate placement. Also in part 1, through amendments 7 to 10, we have introduced an affirmative resolution procedure in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers to direct local authorities to outsource adoption functions, in relation to the use of personal budgets and in relation to allowing approved prospective adopters to search and inspect the Adoption and Children Act 2002 register in pilot areas.
	On part 2 and family justice, many hon. Members will be pleased that the noble Lords accepted the principle and purpose of clause 11. However, we have accepted amendment 12 to clause 11 from the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss. As hon. Members will also be aware, clause 11 introduces a presumption that a child’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of each parent, where this is safe and subject to the overarching principle that the child’s welfare must be paramount. Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment addresses concerns raised that the clause could be misinterpreted as giving a parent a right to a certain amount of time with a child. That was never the intention, as I have said several times during the Bill’s passage. The amendment addresses those concerns by clarifying that “involvement” does not mean a particular amount of time.
	Importantly, the amendment does not change the effect of clause 11, as it will remain for courts to determine what arrangements are right for each child in the light of the evidence before it. I want to put on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has championed this change in the law for many years. I have no doubt that had he not done so, we would not have made the significant progress we now have.

Tim Loughton: I thank the Minister for his comments. I understand the logic of Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment in not referring to a particular division of a child’s time. Despite being at loggerheads with her over many years, I can see the logic of that. Will he explain, though, why her amendment refers to “direct or indirect” contact? What does that add to the Bill?

Edward Timpson: As I said in Committee, I did not feel it was necessary to add anything more to the clause in order to explain its function, but that was not the view
	of their lordships. The reference to “direct or indirect” contact makes it clear what we mean by “contact”. As I know from my time practising in the family courts, many orders are set out in those same terms. It does not mean, however, that indirect contact, in itself, fulfils the presumption that we have now set in law; it simply makes it clear what we mean by “contact”.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for establishing the important principle that children’s rights include knowing, and having contact with, both their parents, but for the benefit of the House and those outside, will he confirm that “indirect” contact will not be interpreted as meaning just a phone call at Christmas or a book of photographs, and that it will be meaningful contact, even if indirect?

Edward Timpson: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his persistence in pushing this issue. I cannot prescribe exactly the outcome of every case before the courts or the view of a judge concerning the correct order to make. However, the clause seeks to make it abundantly clear that, where it is safe to do so and in the child’s best interests, the child should have meaningful contact with both parents. How that contact takes place is then for the judge to determine according to the usual criteria. I was trying to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that indirect contact, on its own, could not, in every case, fulfil the presumption. It is important to put that on the record, and I wrote to him today about that to put—I hope—his mind at rest.

Bill Esterson: On contact, will the Minister clarify the position regarding children’s views and the paramountcy principle? From what he just said, I am slightly concerned about the view of the judge. I know he thinks it important that the needs of the child come first, but how do we ensure that contact is appropriate and avoid inappropriate contact that does more harm than good?

Edward Timpson: We will do that by ensuring that the paramountcy principle still holds water and that the judge’s discretion is not fettered by this change in the law. We went to great lengths to set out, with the help of parliamentary counsel, exactly how that would operate. Baroness Butler-Sloss, with her esteemed legal mind, was happy to accept it in the terms we set out. So I do not see any conflict. We have been clear from the start that this is about the right of the child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, where it is safe for them to do so and in their best interests, and their lordships have agreed to that presumption and principle. The only change that has come, as a consequence of their amendment, is that we are stating in the Bill something that we had already made clear was our intention in both the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and in subsequent stages in the House.
	I would like to recognise the considerable contributions by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)to our important reforms of the family justice system. Their expertise and insight have been invaluable. I was a fellow Cestrian member of the bar and, like him, plied my trade along the north
	Wales coast, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s legal clout will be sorely missed in the next Parliament and beyond.
	Part 3 takes forward our fundamental reforms to special educational needs and introduces integrated education, health and care plans for children and young people with the most complex special educational needs, extends comparable rights and protections to 16 to 25-year-olds in further education and training, as found in schools, and introduces a new local offer to ensure that parents, children, young people and those who work with them can see the support that should be available to them.

Joan Walley: I welcome the enhanced offer in the Bill as a result of our deliberations in Committee. Earlier today, I had a meeting with senior consultants in social services and charities concerned about the situation of seriously ill children, their families and the social work support they need. How will the incorporation into the Bill of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 help those children, who might be terminally ill, but will certainly be seriously ill, and their families get the social work and educational support they need at a very difficult time?

Edward Timpson: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will be dealing in more detail later with the social care element, the 1970 Act and how that sits within the Bill. However, during the course of the Bill, I have met hon. Members concerned about children who might be terminally ill, perhaps with cancer, seeking support from elsewhere, outside their educational environment. We have taken that into account in the Bill and in the code of practice, which is still being drafted but will soon be available, so that those who require support through their education receive it when they need it and in a way that makes a difference.

Joan Walley: Will CLIC Sargent and other charities dealing with the chronically sick have an input into the guidance as well as the Bill?

Edward Timpson: I had the opportunity to meet CLIC Sargent and a Labour Member who has a particular interest in this matter to discuss many of their concerns. That has already resulted in some changes to the draft code of practice, and CLIC Sargent remains involved—as do many other organisations, charities, parent-carer groups, parent partnerships and others—in shaping the SEN code of practice so that it reflects what we know works on the ground. That will continue as we move into the implementation stage, should the Bill become an Act in due course. Given these reforms, for which many families, professionals and charities have been waiting for 30 years, it is fair to say that many of our conversations with CLIC Sargent and other groups—particularly the discussions about the all-important detail, which is ultimately what will matter—have been helpful.

Sharon Hodgson: I, too, am particularly pleased that the local offer has been somewhat strengthened, as it will be central to the success or otherwise of the new system of support for children and young people with special educational needs. However, I still do not think it is
	good enough for the unwritten postcode lottery that we have now just to become a written one. Does the Minister not agree that we need a baseline against which parents can judge whether their local offer is good or even sufficient?

Edward Timpson: I thank the hon. Lady—for probably the 14th time during the passage of this Bill—for her continued constructive approach to this part of the Bill. I know she has a keen interest from her own family background in ensuring that we produce a system that has children and their families at its heart. We had an interesting and quite long debate in the Commons and another place about the local offer and minimum standards, as well as—from memory—a number of Westminster Hall debates.
	It is clear from both the regulation on the local offer that we have set out and the code of practice that having a national framework not only provides some of the stability in provision that the hon. Lady is looking for, but allows the local offer to be truly local, so that people have a genuine reflection of what their local authority expects to be available and deliverable for children and families in that area. Therefore, although I hear her continued call—which I think is for national minimum standards—I think we have got the balance right between having a national framework and giving parents and young people the opportunity to be consulted on the local offer and comment on it as it is developed, and also, given the addition to the Bill and the code since the Commons stages, ensuring that local authorities respond to the queries and concerns raised by families.

Sharon Hodgson: If it is brought to the Minister’s attention that unacceptable differences are developing across the country, will he have a mechanism to revisit this?

Edward Timpson: As the hon. Lady knows, we have to use the affirmative resolution procedure in this House for the code of practice and that will provide an opportunity to look at some of these issues. The other thing we have done to ensure that implementation is as successful as it can be across the country is to carry out a local authority readiness survey. We are working with local authorities that are perhaps not as well advanced as others in starting to prepare for the changes, which includes looking at the local offer and what steps they have taken so far to involve families in its evolution. That will continue as these reforms become a reality from September.

Bill Esterson: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Timpson: I will, but I have quite a lot to get through.

Bill Esterson: I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. Things will vary around the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. Will he look at sharing good practice, and does he think it wise for the Government to be saying, “This is what we consider to be best practice,” in order to give local authorities that do not have best practice an indication of what they should be doing?

Edward Timpson: We have already provided local authorities with a raft of good practice and data to help them not only to improve their understanding of what is required
	of them, but to do better at the earlier end of the process —in commissioning, planning and assessment. We can learn a huge amount from many of the voluntary organisations that are out there in the field, working closely with families and statutory agencies to ensure that they get the best possible outcomes. We have a number of grants and contracts with those voluntary organisations to support them in doing that. That will be a key part of ensuring that our reforms start to bite in the way that we have already started to see in many of the pathfinder areas.
	We have also extended the scope of a number of significant clauses to children and young people who are disabled, but do not have special educational needs, through Lords amendments 14 to 39, 41 to 46, 48 to 51, 62 to 65, 67 and 118. I am pleased that we were able to make that change, which has been widely welcomed. For example, Julie Jennings, a board member of Every Disabled Child Matters, has said:
	“The changes announced today mean that all disabled children and young people, will benefit from the Children and Families Bill when it is introduced. This is very welcome news, indeed.”
	To reflect that, Lords amendment 176 would amend the long title of the Bill to include children and young people with disabilities. We have also made it clear, in clause 21, that health care and social care provision that educates or trains a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision. That relates to an understandable concern of many Members of this House, so I hope the change in Lords amendment 13 is welcome.

Robert Buckland: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. We had many arguments about the “wholly or mainly” provision in the original draft of the Bill, and I am grateful to him and the noble Lord Nash for listening to the case that many of us made against it. We now have clarity, which we hope will prevent the sort of damaging litigation that has plagued special educational needs provision over the years.

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom and force, as he has done throughout the passage of the Bill, particularly on this part. To hear him utter those words gives me great confidence that we have done the right thing and ended up with both clarity and a sense of what is now required as we move forward.
	The local offer was discussed at some length in this House. We have amended part 3 further to improve accountability and the responsiveness of the local offer. I do not think it would be right to make the changes sought by amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43 in the way proposed. These issues have been debated at length in both Houses, both of which accepted the Government’s arguments, which I will briefly explain again.
	The local offer will contain provision made by a wide range of organisations, including small voluntary sector groups or informal arrangements—for example, a circle of friends group for disabled young people set up by local young people. The services may be expected to be available, but this cannot be guaranteed. Requiring local authorities to publish what is available might deter them from including such provision in the first place, and children and young people will miss out. In publishing what it expects to be available, the local authority
	cannot say, “Well, we think this might be available one day, so we’ll put it in.” For the avoidance of any doubt, we will make it clear in the SEN code of practice that the duty on the local authority to set out what it expects to be available is not about what it would like to be available, but about what it actually expects to be available.
	We have also made a set of amendments that will shift the focus from explicit consideration of age when assessing education, health and care plans for 19 to 25-year-olds, and that instead require local authorities to consider whether a young person requires more time to complete their education or training, and whether the specified outcomes have been achieved before the plan can cease.
	Lords amendments 72 and 73 build on the health duty introduced in Committee in the Commons by including in the Bill provision made under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, under which there is an existing duty to provide social care services to disabled children. Those amendments were welcomed by the Special Educational Consortium and a number of peers on Third Reading in the other place. Lord Rix said:
	“The government amendments move us closer to the holy grail of integrated education, health and social care,”
	and will
	“undoubtedly aid children and young people with a learning disability and their families.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 209.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Timpson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Debbie Abrahams: Well remembered, Minister!
	I think that there is much that we can support in the Bill, but I wanted to ask about the single point of appeal and the reviews and pilots that are taking place. Will the Minister explain how the findings will be used in the further development of the appeal process?

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for returning us to the important issue of redress. I shall go into a little more detail in due course, but I can say now that I was conscious from the outset that we should do all that we can to integrate education, health and social care throughout the system, including in the areas where there was disagreement. I think that we have gone a long way towards achieving that during the passage of the Bill so far, but if the hon. Lady will bear with me for a few moments, I shall wax lyrical for her and the House’s benefit.
	I understand the intention behind amendment (a) to Lords amendment 73. It is, of course, vital for parents and practitioners to understand the duties to deliver the social care services specified in the education, health and care plan. However, let me reiterate the points made by Baroness Northover when she spoke to Lords amendments 72 and 73.
	The Government amendments mean that when a local authority decides that it is necessary to make provision for a disabled child under section 2 of the
	Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 following an EHC assessment, the authority must—I emphasise the word “must”—identify which provision is made under section 2 of the Act, specify that provision clearly in the EHC plan, and deliver the provision. Furthermore—I hope that this is helpful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—we will ensure that the SEN code of practice specifies the services under section 2 that must be included in the EHC plan and explains the existing duty to provide those services, in order to provide clarity and reassurance for parents and practitioners.
	The code of practice will clearly specify the other social care services that must be included in the EHC plan and relevant local authority duties, including services provided for children and young people under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 that are not covered by the 1970 Act, such as residential short breaks, and adult social care services for young people aged 18 to 25, where a care plan is drawn up under provisions in the Care Bill. Given those reassurances, I do not think it is necessary to legislate for a further requirement to identify existing duties in the EHC plan.
	Lords amendments 86 to 97 and 113 constitute a strong package to improve the join-up between education, health and social care when parents and young people wish to complain or seek redress. That includes extending mediation and establishing a review of appeals and redress in the new SEN system. Following a commitment that I gave on Report, we tabled a meaty group of amendments that will strengthen protections and support for young offenders with SEN. They require local authorities and relevant health commissioners to arrange appropriate special education and health provision for young offenders in custody, enable EHC assessments to take place while a child or young person is in custody, and require secure youth institutions to co-operate with local authorities and to have regard to the SEN code of practice.
	The package also includes amendment 114, which would remove clause 70. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for his involvement in and guidance on the issue, and on many of the changes I have just outlined. As he knows, I was as uncomfortable as he was about clause 70. Although it was a legal necessity at the beginning of our deliberations, it did not really reflect the ambition that we shared, and I hope that he is as pleased as I am to see the back of it.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he worked with the Ministry of Justice and, in particular, with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who was as committed as we were to ensuring that this was an ambitious Bill that covered all the right areas. I pay tribute to both Ministers for ensuring that children and young people who need rehabilitation as much as punishment can be assisted, and we can reduce reoffending. That is very important too.

Edward Timpson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps I should also put on record the important contribution of Lord Ramsbotham, who, having worked at the top of the Prison Service, has continued his work in Parliament and enabled us to make the inroads that we have made in the Bill.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)— whose continued scrutiny of and interest in the Bill have been extremely welcome—and all the other members of the Education Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for all the challenge and support that they have given to this part of the Bill. Let me also put on record my deep gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for doing so much of the groundwork, without which the Bill might never have become a reality.
	Part 4 contains a number of important measures that will help to make more high-quality, affordable child care available to parents. It addresses the long-term decline in childminder numbers by establishing childminder agencies, removes the requirement for local authorities to produce a bureaucratic three-yearly assessment of child care in their areas, and introduces paving legislation for tax-free child care.
	On Report in another place, we were pleased to introduce Lords amendments 157 to 160, which contain a clear requirement for Ofsted to report on the arrangements whereby childminder agencies assure the quality of the early education and care offered by their childminders. I note that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 158 relates to that subject, and I can confirm that our intention is for Ofsted to conduct sample inspections to secure that assurance. Ofsted recently published its consultation paper on childminder agency inspections, which includes details of its proposal to carry out sample inspections of early years providers, so we do not agree that such a provision is needed in the Bill. I am happy to discuss the matter with both the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) as we try to proceed with these important changes.
	We also introduced technical amendments, Lords amendments 161 to 175 to schedule 4, to clarify the arrangements for childminders to appeal against suspensions by their childminder agencies and to clarify the disqualification regime for staff running or working in a childminder agency. Lords amendment 119 allows regulations to be made setting out the arrangements whereby local authorities fund early years providers delivering the free child care offer, and limiting any unnecessary conditions that local authorities could place on providers. I am pleased that we were able to introduce new policy to the Bill, which, if accepted, would create a new part 5 entitled “Welfare of Children”.
	Lords amendment 120 removes the restriction on the types of performance in which a child under 14 can be licensed to take part, which will enable children to take part in a wider range of performances. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his admirable persistence in keeping that issue to the fore. I know from the correspondence that I have subsequently received from a range of organisations and individuals who are vexed by the issue how warmly those changes have been received. Let me put on record my thanks to Sarah Thane, whose work ensured that the issues were properly examined and have resulted in important legislative and non-legislative changes. I am
	continuing to work with the Local Government Association to enable local authorities to gain as much information as possible on how they can streamline their own procedures so that many more children, as well as being safe and having their welfare taken into consideration, have the opportunity to participate in what can be extremely valuable additions to their early lives.
	Lords amendment 126 adds an important new clause to improve the assessment of the needs of young carers. I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the National Young Carers Coalition for their constructive and patient approach and interest in this subject. Matthew Reed, the chief executive of the Children’s Society, welcomed the amendment, saying:
	“We applaud the Government for taking a huge leap to support often incredibly vulnerable young carers who are slipping through the net, undetected by the support services they desperately need.”
	Lords amendment 127 adds a new clause which consolidates and streamlines existing legislation for individuals with parental responsibility for a disabled child, under which they have the right to an assessment of their needs by a local authority.

Paul Burstow: On amendment 126 in respect of young carers as well as parent carers, may I thank the Minister very much for the way in which he has engaged with carers organisations, me and many other hon. Members? These issues first surfaced in the Joint Committee’s scrutiny of the Care Bill, and I thank the Minister for care and support, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for the way he has engaged with these issues, too. Will the Minister here tonight now give some consideration to the following? Now that we have these two parts of the Bill and we complete the range of improvements for carers, can we make sure we have joint guidance from both Departments covering all carers?

Edward Timpson: May I first pay particular thanks to my right hon. Friend and also to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) for their dedicated work and interest on behalf of parent carers? That was clearly on display at the meeting I had with them both not too long ago. My right hon. Friend will see that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for care is sitting alongside me, and we both heard that constructive and sensible suggestion, and we will both take it up and discuss it in more detail and see whether we can make some important cross-Government changes so that those who are looking at the guidance that is relevant to them find it easier to access and understand it, rather than trying to find information in a host of different places.

Paul Burstow: It is helpful to get these points clarified. I think my suggestion would be helpful, in particular because this welcome new provision for parent carers makes specific reference to the well-being principle in the Care Bill; and making sure that guidance is co-ordinated will ensure that there is no difference in application, regardless of whether someone is in a children’s service or an adult service.

Edward Timpson: My right hon. Friend makes a sensible and logical suggestion; we will go away and consider it and come back to him in due course.
	Amendment 128 added a new clause enabling any young person who was in care immediately before their 18th birthday as an eligible child to continue to reside with their former foster carer once they turn 18. The local authority will be under a duty to support such arrangements, commonly known as “staying put” arrangements, until the young person reaches the age of 21. This is an issue on which many of us with a background in fostering and adoption and those involved with the all-party group on looked after children and care leavers from both sides of this House and in another place have worked for many years. I am delighted that we have been able to find the funding to do it, and I would like to thank the Earl of Listowel and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) for their work on this area. I am very sad that the late and much missed Paul Goggins is not with us today to celebrate this important step forward for young people leaving care. As was typical of Paul, I suspect he would have shied away from taking any of the plaudits, a trait that set him apart and from which we could all learn. We owe him a huge debt.
	In welcoming this new clause, Janet Rich of The Care Leavers’ Foundation said:
	“Step by step this Government has demonstrated that it truly understands the difficulties which face care leavers as they set out on the journey towards adulthood. Today’s announcement is another positive step on the journey towards State-as-parent acknowledging the duty they owe to this uniquely vulnerable group of young adults”.

Bill Esterson: I agree with the move the Minister is proposing. I think it is very good news. I also welcome what he said about Paul Goggins. Is this the start of a move to raise the age for care-leaving, given that many adult children stay at home much longer than this? Will the Minister say something about the potential for extending the care-leaving age for children in residential homes as well, as it is my understanding that that is staying at 18?

Edward Timpson: I share what I think is the hon. Gentleman’s ambition, and that of many others, to move away from seeing age as the sole indicator of whether a young person is ready to move on when they are in the care of the state, and, as we have done in the Care Bill and elsewhere in this Bill, to move towards looking at it as more of a continuum of care, trying to shape what is necessary for the young person around that young person, rather than simply using the blunt instrument of a birthday to decide their future.
	This is an important step in relation to the three-quarters of children who are in foster care and securing their future into adulthood, but of course, as I made clear in an Adjournment debate only a week or so ago, I want to see us move towards this as a norm rather than an exception. That is why, although we have some much needed wide-reaching reforms to the residential care system, I see that as part of addressing how we can use residential care in a much better way than we have in the past, not simply seeing it as a last resort, which has too often been the default position. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that I very much desire to see what we have done with the “staying put” arrangements for foster children spread more widely at the right time and
	when we have confidence that it will do what we want it to do, which is to improve the lives of those who are moving on from care and into independent living.
	We worked closely with a number of organisations to bring about amendment 129, which introduces a new duty requiring maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units to support pupils with medical conditions. This issue was first raised in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). We are currently consulting on draft statutory guidance and advice which will support the duty, but it is encouraging that the likes of Diabetes UK had this to say about the change:
	“The Government’s announcement that it will amend the Children and Families Bill so that schools have a legal duty to support children with health needs has the potential to make a huge difference to the lives of around a million children.”
	Amendment 130 adds a new clause to clarify the law in relation to the Secretary of State’s power to intervene when a local authority is failing to deliver children’s services to an adequate standard. Amendments 131 to 134 seek to improve the quality of children’s homes, and particularly to enable us to develop a regulation and inspection framework for children’s homes that sets high standards for children in residential care and offers them the support required to achieve positive outcomes. This has been a significant piece of policy development, founded on the formidable efforts of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who is in her place tonight and whose own all-party group report and continued close involvement have been of huge assistance. As she knows, this is part of a wider reform package which is already under way and I have no intention of shying away from the necessary changes required to ensure that children who are in residential care get the best possible care based on the best possible decisions.
	Amendment 135 introduces a new clause to require state-funded schools, including academies, to offer a free school meal to all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2. Giving every infant pupil a healthy and nutritious lunch will bring educational, health and social benefits, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Amendments 136 to 138, which cover the provisions on the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, will require the Children’s Commissioner to have “particular regard” to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to give an account in his or her annual report of the steps taken to involve children and how their views were taken into account in the discharge of his or her functions.
	Amendments 139 to 142 are minor and technical amendments relating to the part of the Bill that deals with the introduction of shared parental leave. They would give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to allow for a notice to curtail statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance or statutory adoption pay to be revoked subject to restrictions and conditions. Finally, consequential amendments 144 to 151 would make commencement dates clear in the Bill where necessary.
	I commend these changes to all hon. Members. I firmly believe that they have improved our legislation and that, more important, they will make a profound and tangible difference to the lives of children and families.

Stephen McCabe: This feels like the end of a long, hard road for the Bill. As the Minister said, the Bill has been substantially amended
	since it left the Commons, and for that we owe their lordships a huge debt of gratitude. I should like to take a few moments to acknowledge the efforts of some of the individuals involved in the process, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who did the heavy lifting on the Bill in the Commons. I also want to thank Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, as well as the numerous Cross Benchers involved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and my colleague in the shadow Education team, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who worked so hard on the Bill in Committee and more recently. I also want to put on record my gratitude to our friend, the late Paul Goggins, who worked so hard on so many aspects of the Bill.
	As I have said, the Bill before us now is vastly changed and improved, but only because of the herculean efforts of those in the Lords. Sadly, before it left this place, the Minister rejected all but one of the amendments from Members in the Commons. This is a Government who appear to want to make legislation in the other place. I am delighted that the Minister has now accepted so many amendments. We generally welcome the changes on adoption and, in particular, Lords amendment 2, as well as the decision to recognise the importance of kinship and friends when considering children for adoption. I welcome amendments 3 to 7, and the limitation on the Secretary of State’s powers to force the outsourcing of adoption services, especially as we have such a capricious Secretary of State at present—

Tim Loughton: What does that mean?

Stephen McCabe: I’ll buy you a dictionary.
	We also welcome amendments 9 and 10, which add safeguards on regulations to give prospective adopters access to information on the register. Finally, in that section, we are happy with amendment 12, as we want children to have access to both parents after a separation when that is in the best interests of the child, but not when it involves an arbitrary division of the child’s time between the parents.

Tim Loughton: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have now accepted the principle of shared parenting. Will he tell us what changed his mind? I seem to remember that he signed the early-day motion in favour of shared parenting but subsequently voted against the proposal in the 2006 Bill, so what has changed his mind? I am delighted that he has now come full circle on this matter.

Stephen McCabe: I think there might be a slight difference between our definitions of shared parenting. That might be the simplest explanation. I am in favour of children having access to both parents, as I have said.
	We are pleased that amendments to part 3 mean that the Minister now recognises the need to provide for children who have a disability but not a special educational need. I also welcome the Government’s conversion on the need to cater for young offenders, many of whom do have special educational needs. I congratulate the Minister on accepting amendment 128—the staying put
	amendment—which means that children in foster care will now be able to stay with their foster parents until the age of 21. I want to acknowledge how much personal effort he has devoted to these changes, along with all the others who have been arguing for them.
	I also welcome efforts to improve the appeals system for parents, who often feel that the problem is not that their child has a disability or special need, but the lifelong battle they are forced to engage in with the authorities to get their child the help and support they deserve. Of course, the amendments covering young carers address a glaring omission in the original Bill, and we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for all her efforts on that point.
	Many more areas of the Bill have been vastly improved by their lordships’ intervention, but I wish to discuss the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues in the shadow education team, which deal with a number of concerns we have about how the Bill will work in practice. We do not intend to press any of these amendments to a vote, but that does not diminish our concern about how these issues will develop. On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43, we want to make it abundantly clear that the local offer must not be the minimum a local authority thinks it can get away with; it is no good producing legislation full of good intentions while simultaneously stripping resources from local authorities, thus making it almost impossible for them to deliver on these intentions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I hope that we can be assured tonight that the Minister will be instructing his officials to monitor the implementation of the Bill and ensure that reasonable local services are provided across local authorities, and that where omissions or obstacles are identified, he will intervene to make clear that it is not acceptable, and that it is not the intention of his legislation, to create a postcode lottery where access to services and provision depends on where someone lives and what impact Department for Communities and Local Government cuts have had on their local authority area.
	On Lords amendment 73 to clause 37, and our further amendment, it is our wish to make it abundantly clear that there should be no get-out clause for local authorities in providing access to social care provision specified within an education, health and care plan. If that is not the case, this Bill will have failed and the Minister will have let down hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country who have taken him and his Government at their word that this is a brave new world of joined-up provision, designed to try to relieve them of their daily struggles for support. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the code of practice, but I want to know that he will step in if there is any question of a local authority seeking to evade its responsibilities to provide social care as specified in the plan.
	Finally, we continue to doubt the entire wisdom of childminder agencies, but we recognise that this is largely a cost-saving measure by a Government who cannot give Ofsted the resources to inspect individual childminding provision. On clause 51D and Lords amendment 158, and our further amendment, we are seeking to make it crystal clear to the Minister that we do not want shoddy childminder agencies on the cheap, with little or no regard paid to the quality of care provided for the children. As the Minister will know, the Department
	did not consult effectively with childminders on this proposal, and it is not broadly welcomed by childminders. None the less the Government have gone ahead, so we need to be clear that Ofsted will have sufficient powers to check the quality of care provided by individuals within the agencies, especially at the first whiff of concern that the agency or individual provision is not up to standard. There is a potential conflict with childminder agencies, in that they will be both inspector and inspected, and they will have a financial incentive to recruit childminders.

Sharon Hodgson: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about who is going to pay for all the costs of these childminder agencies? Will the costs be passed on to the childminder agency, which will in turn have to pass them on to the parents, thus increasing the cost of using that childminder?

Stephen McCabe: The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and the Family and Childcare Trust say exactly that this model will increase costs for parents. A recent Netmums survey shows that people say that Ofsted inspection of childminders increases their confidence in the suitability of the childminders they choose, while an almost equal proportion say that regulation by an agency other than Ofsted would reduce their confidence. We will be keen to hear more about how the Minister will pilot his approach and how it will work in practice. Will he take on board the fact that parents will want to access reliable information about the quality of childminders, which they currently obtain through Ofsted inspection grades and reports?

Charlie Elphicke: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s concern for childminders. Did the number of childminders rise or fall under the previous Government?

Stephen McCabe: I understand that the number has fallen since this Government came to office, but the hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am talking about childminding on the cheap, yet with a service of insufficient quality to make it worth having. If that is the outcome, it will be understandable when parents do not agree with him.
	The Government have already scrapped local authorities’ power to consider the sufficiency of child care in their area. If they fail to equip Ofsted with proper powers to investigate what is happening at a childminder’s place of work, they risk exposing vulnerable young children to untold risk. I am sure that the Minister would not want to be associated with that legacy.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman and I both know that the number of childminders plummeted because the previous Government engaged in a war on childminders. It is disappointing that he tries to cloak the continuation of that war under the cover of standards.

Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman is probably wrong because I think he is referring to the impact of Ofsted registration—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) can neigh as much he likes, but we are talking about the quality of child care.

Sharon Hodgson: My understanding is that the situation is as my hon. Friend set out. When Ofsted started to inspect childminders, dormant childminders—people such as me who were registered, but had never practised childminding—fell off the books. The people affected either were not active childminders or were not prepared to improve their quality and follow Ofsted standards.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that there is now some agreement on what happened.
	I do not wish to detain the House any longer. We welcome the Lords amendments and we are broadly in favour of the Bill, although we think its implementation will be all important. We urge the Minister to make it clear that, as far as he is concerned, getting the Bill through Parliament is the first stage; the question of whether it operates as he intends is the real test of whether it is indeed landmark legislation.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). Although he has come to his brief towards the end of the Bill’s passage, I know that he shares the aspirations of those of us who care deeply about not only children with special educational needs, but children and young people in general, which is why I warmly welcome the Lords amendments.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind if I remind him of our lengthy debates in Committee, when we were joined by the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as well as hon. Members who are not in the Chamber. I do so because I think that the Bill’s passage through this House offers a very positive example of how scrutiny can work. The length of time we took—the Committee’s proceedings were extended by several sittings to allow all the debates—allowed us to lay a good foundation so that their lordships could consider our concerns and act upon them.

Sharon Hodgson: I am grateful to be in the Chamber tonight to hear the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Does he agree that it was the hundreds of amendments and the hundreds of hours—it felt like hundreds—of debate in the Commons that laid the groundwork that allowed the Lords to bring forward the amendments that the Minister is able to accept today? If that is how it has to be, then we did our job, but it is a shame that more amendments could not have been made in the Commons.

Robert Buckland: I agree that it would have been nice to have made some of the amendments in the Commons, but I understand that in the other place there is more time for deliberation and for votes, so the fact that we reached this stage in that way does not trouble me. We are in the right place and the legislation is now in good order. Let us not forget that the process that got us to this stage predates First Reading, because there was an extensive consultation process. A consultation paper was issued in 2011, followed by many months of proper consultation not only with education providers and the third sector, but with children and young people themselves, whose views have been brought to bear in large measure in the Bill.
	Only this morning I visited one of the special schools in Swindon, the Uplands secondary school, where the Uplands Educational Trust was holding its annual general meeting. It is a new organisation that has been set up purely to start offering post-19 provision for young people who have gone through the school system and hit the cliff edge of transition, which is still a problem that bedevils parents, carers and young people in the education system and beyond. It is an admirable and excellent initiative that I fully support. I believe that such organisations will be the mainstay of enhancing and developing post-19 provision right up to the age of 25 and beyond for many young people with disabilities and special educational needs. Without the input of such organisations, I worry that the aspirations in the Bill for extending provision to those crucial years will not be met.
	The message that came home loud and clear from parents and carers today was that although they warmly welcome the Bill, the implementation will be key. Once again I heard from many parents who find the transition period the most difficult one of all, despite the good intentions and the good work of local authorities, such as Swindon borough council. The message that they wished me to convey to the House is that in many cases, involving the parents and carers—the greatest experts when it comes to their children and young people—is vital to making transition work.
	If we are to get that right, the code of practice that will be brought into force later this year, as set out in the Bill, will be crucial. I am glad that the code will be approved through the affirmative procedure in this House in its first iteration, with subsequent revisions made using the negative procedure, which should allow for frequent updating. The existing code has not been updated since 2001—hardly the embodiment of the living instrument that I and many others expect the code of practice to become. It is my sincere hope and fervent wish that the Government take on board the failure of that code to keep up to date with modern practice and to ensure that it truly is a living and adaptable instrument that reflects not only the aspirations of children and young people with special needs and disabilities, but the reality of experience on the ground. Implementation is everything.

Sarah Champion: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the very important issue of transition. I share his thoughts and concerns and thank him for raising it.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She and I have spoken about these issues in the past, and I know that she shares on behalf of her constituents the aspirations that I have for mine.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned implementation, but it is important to reiterate the point. I stress the importance of the pilot scheme for the single point of redress as regards the appeals mechanism for parents who have met with a refusal or a decision that is not, in their view, in the interests of the child they look after. I argued long and hard with my hon. Friend the Minister for a streamlining of the system. My worry was that despite the proper attempt to bring health, education and social care together, the courts and tribunal system would still be fragmented in the sense of people having to launch and lodge appeals in different formats.
	My hon. Friend has rightly placed great emphasis on mediation. I support the provisions that relate to the use of mediation for parents, because we do not want more of the adversarial combat that has bedevilled the fight that many families have had to undergo to obtain SEN provision. It is important that the pilot becomes a reality, that the intentions in the Bill are not left to lie gathering dust, and that there is a proper evaluation of the pilot so that, if it proves necessary, we can go down the road of having a single point of redress provided by the first-tier tribunal. That is important in making the system user-friendly, simple, streamlined and clear.
	Some of the most important amendments deal with the extension of the duty on local authorities to identify not only children and young people with SEN but all children and young people with a disability. That is a hugely important concession that goes a long way towards satisfying the concerns of those of us who were worried about what happens to children and young people who are, for example, on school action or school action plus and would not be caught by the provisions. These amendments, which are replicated throughout the Bill, will make a huge difference to the lives of young people with a disability. They also give added impetus to the need for early identification of a health issue. Leaving these matters until full-time education is not good enough when there is so much more we can do during the early years and, indeed, the very early years to identify disability so that, way before the child gets to school, action is taken not only to diagnose the condition, whatever it may be, but to assist them and their family with its consequences.
	I warmly welcome the whole-family approach that is now being taken in the context of carers. Together with other hon. Members, I supported amendments on young carers. I was very pleased that the recommendations about parent carers made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, were also taken up in the other place. We now genuinely have a whole-family approach to the assessment of carers, and that is absolutely vital if we are really going to make a change on the ground.
	My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the position of young people in detention. The glaring deficiency in the Bill as originally drafted has now been amply dealt with by the very comprehensive amendments that were accepted in the other place. My friend Lord Ramsbotham deserves huge credit for the tireless work that he does on this and other matters. Particularly important is the fact that the disability of difficulty with speech and language communication will now be identified as a health issue at the earliest possible stage, and I think that will have hugely positive consequences for those young people affected.
	I think we can say that this is a Bill of which we can be justly proud and that we will be able to look back on it in the same way we look back on the Education Act 1981, which first legislated on the SEN concepts with which we are now so familiar. That Act is now being succeeded by a Bill that takes on those concepts for a new generation and develops them in a humane, comprehensive and effective way. As I have said, however, if we do not get the implementation right on the ground, and if the local offers I expect to appear across the country are no more than mere signposting, we will have failed. To use a well-worn phrase, this is not the
	end or the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning when it comes to judging the effectiveness of this historic Bill.

Ann Coffey: I welcome the staying-put Lords amendment 128, which means that a young person can stay with their foster carers until they are 21. The Fostering Network ran an excellent campaign, bringing to our attention the many examples of young people in care who may have experienced poor parental care and neglect, who often go into care for the first time in their early teens and who need more time and stability to prepare for adult life. It is good that they will now be able to stay—provided they wish to do so, of course—with foster parents who will see them through that transition to independence. That has been very much welcomed by foster carers in my constituency.
	I also congratulate the Earl of Listowel on his determined efforts to persuade the Minister to change his mind after his initial rebuff to hon. Members. It was clear that the Minister had great sympathy with the proposal and it is to his credit that he was able to find the money to underpin it. I regret that Paul Goggins, who, sadly, died earlier this year and ran a tremendous campaign on the issue, is not here to enjoy its successful conclusion.
	I want to raise an issue with regard to the draft guidance issued on 4 February to support the Bill’s Third Reading in the House of Lords. A paragraph on preparations for ceasing to be looked after states that
	“local authorities should start discussions with the young person and foster carer regarding the option of staying put as early as possible, ideally before the young person reaches the age of 16.”
	Another part of the guidance states that there is no minimum time the young person needs to have lived with their foster carer prior to turning 18. One of my slight concerns about the way in which the guidance is written is that it might be interpreted as only being a consideration in a long-standing foster placement, whereas the provision gives young people the option to stay put with foster parents, even if they have only been there for a few weeks. It is important that this is seen as an option for those vulnerable young people who may have left a children’s home aged 16 and were not able to cope in the accommodation they were then offered. Foster care would be a good option for some of those young people in order to help put them back on their feet.

Edward Timpson: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Although she correctly notes that this is draft guidance that is subject to further discussion, I believe that, in the main, it reflects the Bill well. I am, of course, happy to take up any specific concerns, particularly that which she has raised this evening.

Ann Coffey: I thank the Minister for that. I also welcome his amendments, which mean that Ofsted will be able to inspect children’s homes for good standards rather than minimum standards. It seemed strange that one of the young girls involved in the child sexual exploitation case in Rochdale had run away 100 times from a children’s home, yet that home was deemed “good” by an Ofsted inspection. I hope that will not happen again.
	I very much look forward to the Minister’s proposals for introducing a reform package for the qualifications and training of staff working in children’s homes. It cannot be right that the most damaged children are often cared for by the least qualified staff. I wonder whether he might give us a time scale for bringing forward those proposals.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).
	I want to speak in support of the large group of Lords amendments that extend the scope of clauses 22 to 32 to include disabled children, as well as those with special educational needs, but I first want to place on the record my thanks and those of my Committee to the Minister for his close co-operation on the Bill over the long period of its development. His actions to improve it in response to our recommendations and those of many others have been greatly appreciated. Something about how he has conducted himself in bilateral and multilateral meetings has endeared himself to the House, which might explain why he has been given the accolade of Minister of the year. I will not seek to curse his future career with such praise any more, so I shall move swiftly on.
	As has been said, when the achievements of this coalition Government are reviewed, the Bill will rank highly among them. This large group of amendments certainly strengthens the Bill. When the Education Committee conducted our pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn of 2012, the evidence we heard made a strong case for the inclusion of disabled children, with or without SEN, in the scope of entitlement provision and education, health and care plans.
	Mencap emphasised that it was undesirable that eligibility for much of the support in the Bill could be engaged only via an educational trigger, meaning that children and young people with primary health and care needs might not be identified as having SEN until they reached an educational setting. In her evidence to us, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather)—sadly, she is no longer in her place—acknowledged the
	“huge crossover with children with disabilities”.
	The omission of reference to the disabled seemed to run directly contrary to the Government’s laudable aspiration to achieve the earliest possible intervention for those who need extra support. I am therefore delighted that the Bill has been amended in that way.
	The only weakness I identify is the continued lack of regulation on the local offer for children and young people mandated by clause 30. The weight of evidence received by my Committee clearly supported the introduction of minimum standards for the local offer—the Minister referred to that earlier—which the Government have consistently resisted. I appreciate that Ministers have taken steps to increase the accountability and responsiveness of the offer made by local authorities, but I ask the Minister to undertake carefully to monitor the standards set by different local authorities across the country so that some do not duck their responsibilities, as other hon. Members have mentioned.
	I want to speak in favour of Lords amendments 69 and 70. In our scrutiny report, my Committee welcomed the introduction of integrated education, health and
	care plans—or EHCPs, as doubtless no one will remember to call them—which are at the centre of those amendments. We were clear in paragraph 98 of our report that
	“the cut-off point for EHCPs should be when educational outcomes are achieved”,
	rather than by reference to any specific age. We heard from Di Roberts, the principal of Brockenhurst college, who gave the example of two learners with profound deafness: they were on marine engineering apprenticeships and had to have signers to help them with their training. They are precisely the young people who need extra support to follow their ambitions so that they can succeed in life. The Bill should not open a door to local authorities to take that support away, simply because someone needs longer to complete their education or training. A young person’s age is a comparatively superficial factor that should not be used to determine whether they would continue to benefit from an EHCP.
	I want quickly to mention Lords amendment 110. It affects clause 67, which governs the new code of practice as regards special educational needs. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified when exactly the new SEN code of practice is expected to be published. I am told that it might not be published until June, which would leave very little time for the new system to come into force from September. I appreciate that it will take up to three years to migrate existing statement holders to the new code of practice, but I know that many parents would appreciate learning the latest information about the timetable.
	I am aware of the time, so I shall touch on Lords amendment 128 only briefly. It will enable young people in foster care to live at home until the age of 21 if that is right for them and their foster family agrees. The Select Committee has long been concerned about the position of children who are fostered or in care, and about the accommodation and support that is provided for them. We welcome the announcement of greater support for 16 to 17-year-olds that was made by the Department last summer. This amendment continues the spirit of that work. It is both sensible and sensitive to young people’s needs. The comfort that is derived from having a family home does not end at 18. Allowing young people who may have had particularly disturbed childhoods to continue to enjoy the support of their foster family until 21 is quite simply the right thing to do. The Minister and the Government deserve to be congratulated on adopting the amendment.
	I was delighted to see Lords amendment 129 included in the Bill. It inserts a duty to support pupils with medical conditions. Members from across the House will have had constituents come to them with stories of the difficulty of getting fairly straightforward and simple support for their children in school. They will have heard tales of parents having to leave work to pick up their kids and take them elsewhere. I spoke in favour of an amendment of this nature that was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) at Report stage in the Commons last June.
	I have had the opportunity to meet the Crawforth family from my constituency, most recently on a school visit a few days ago. Their son suffers from type 1 diabetes. A recent study by Diabetes UK found that 46% of young people with diabetes—almost half—do not have a health care plan for managing their condition at school. Of those who have a plan, 17% do not feel
	confident that it is being implemented. Those statistics concern parents up and down the country, and understandably so. Lords amendment 129 will require schools to engage directly with the families of children with serious, ongoing health concerns and to co-operate with local NHS authorities to design strategies to reduce the risks. Its inclusion strengthens the Bill.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stuart: There is very little time left so, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not give way.
	The proposed statutory guidance under Lords amendment 129 will ensure that schools have to observe national standards. That will go a long way to ending the current lottery in respect of children’s safety at school.
	Lords amendment 135 represents something of an exception to my generally positive feelings about the Bill. I want to be clear at the outset that free school meals are a matter of basic social justice and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I am wary about extending free school meals to all pupils in reception and years 1 and 2, regardless of how well off their parents are. I ask the Minister whether it would not have been better, at a time of austerity, to target the extra funding more carefully, either by extending free school meals to families whose earnings place them just above the current entitlement threshold or by providing extra funding for valuable schemes such as breakfast clubs to help the pupils who most need them. Perhaps the funding could have been used to ensure that sixth-form colleges and further education colleges are not penalised by having to pay VAT or through 18-year-olds losing funding because of pressures elsewhere in the budget. Like any Government spending, this policy has to be paid for. It might not worry our coalition partners, but this amendment means that the Government will find themselves in the bizarre position of taxing families on low and middle incomes to subsidise children from affluent homes.
	There is also a wider question about the priorities in our education system. Last Friday, I visited Walkington primary school in my constituency. It is a great school. Over the past three years, thanks to the hard work of its teachers, it has moved from the 52nd to the 12th percentile in terms of progress. It has achieved that despite receiving £500 less per head than the national median funding for primary schools. Funding is a constant struggle, not just for Walkington, but for schools across my home county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which is the area that receives the third lowest amount of funding in the country. In that context, I find it hard to believe that some of the £600 million that has been allocated to the free school meals policy could not have been better spent to promote fairer outcomes for all, wherever they may live.

Jessica Lee: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate on this important Bill. I will start by declaring an interest as a family law barrister. Over many years, I have represented parents, guardians, grandparents, children, guardians, social workers and many other people. I have no doubt that the Bill will improve the prospects of some of the most vulnerable children in our society, in particular those who are in foster care and those who are placed for adoption.
	We in this House often focus on the issues that divide us, but matters such as the prospects for looked-after children always unite the House, and efforts have been made across the parties and in the other place to progress the Bill in a positive way, and to work on the detail and reach our agreed position this evening. I remember fondly—as will many other hon. Members, I am sure—the many hours spent on the Bill Committee considering these important measures.
	I wish briefly to highlight two points this evening. The first is the extremely positive development in part 5 of the Bill that makes provision for young people to remain, or, as the phrase goes, to “stay put”, in foster care until the age of 21. It is almost impossible for any of us to imagine how, in addition to all the challenges that young people face when considering their careers and their journey into adult life, some will have the added uncertainty of their whole home support network being in possible jeopardy.
	Too often I have seen court cases involving older teenage children where, despite the best efforts of all those involved—the judiciary, solicitors, social work team and so on—and a care plan that is always carefully worded and constructed along with the legislation, there is always a concern that there is only so much the court can do. Previously, up to the age of 16 or 17 there was that uncertainty, and a gap in the provision of services. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister in leading on these measures. The whole House has worked extremely hard to identify those gaps and to ensure that continued provision, which is much needed for young people as they move into the adult world. The Bill will need time to be implemented, and we will also need time to evaluate and assess the success of what is being proposed. Nevertheless, I think that all involved will see tonight as a significant step forward for looked-after children.
	My second point is about clause 11. The House has had the benefit of the expertise of Baroness Butler-Sloss who assisted in that section of the Bill. As the former president of the family division, she may perhaps offer more expertise than most of us when it comes to understanding how the drafting of the clause may be interpreted in the family courts. I have no doubt that the starting point for all courts when considering contact and residence applications has been, and will continue to be, that children will always benefit from a relationship with both of their parents, unless there is a good reason to move away from that.
	As a family practitioner I have no doubt that contact and residence cases can be the most emotive and difficult litigation for individuals to commence. Put simply, it is to do with the relationship that people have with their own flesh and blood. In advance of such cases, those around the clients involved, such as the solicitors, not only give legal advice but often take the on role of friend and confidant as they guide the parents—or increasingly the grandparents—through such litigation. That highly emotive aspect to these cases is why the drafting of the Bill is so crucial—drafting is crucial for all legislation, but it is a particular issue with this clause.
	Clause 11 is entitled, “Welfare of the child: parental involvement”. That maintains the important balance of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents, but it does in some ways move away from
	suggesting that there is any division in terms of time, which is different from what some of the other proposed phrases may have done. That was, of course, never the intention of using a phrase such as “shared parenting”, but I understand why a parent involved in litigation might interpret the words in such a way.
	I thank all those involved, including the voluntary organisations, those in the family courts and, as I said earlier, Members from across the House and the other place who have worked extremely hard on this Bill. I commend the Minister who has done extremely well in leading on this important Bill. I for one look forward to this positive and progressive Bill being granted Royal Assent.

Caroline Nokes: As a member of the Bill Committee, I would like to comment on two amendments made by their honourable lordships. The first could improve the Bill, but I have some reservations about the second. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for reminding the House of the lengthy consultation period ahead of the Bill, which gave all interest groups the opportunity to contribute to both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee on Justice.
	One aspect of interest to me in Committee and on Lords amendments—I tabled amendments—is special educational needs. Approaching 90% of SEN children do not benefit from having a statement, making it harder for them to access the support they need. I was therefore delighted that a number of proposals in the Bill will improve local accountability and delivery of services. That has been raised with me by Scope and Ambitious about Autism, which have campaigned effectively on that.
	The Bill seeks to establish the right of parents to have their comments on the local offer of services published. However, amendment 47 was introduced to force local authorities to publish not only the comments, but what action the authority plans to take as a result of them. I support that amendment because I believe it is important that local authorities develop workable action plans in conjunction with parents, who should be part of the process and not simply have a plan imposed upon them. I therefore hope that the proposal means that we begin to see parents at the heart of decision making, and that that will become part of the code of practice.
	It is important that the Government recognise the difficulties that families often face in accessing specialist support when that support is located out of area. I therefore hope that the code of practice ensures the promotion of specialist services that are accessible and are provided as locally as possible, perhaps by integrating the development and provision of specialist services with other local community services, and not separately, as so often happens at present.
	One further point raised with me by, among others, the Special Educational Consortium, is the need for a single point of redress, which the Minister has mentioned. He recently stated that there is to be a review, but will he take the opportunity this evening to give the Government’s position on a single point of redress and the review, and on the pilot of the complaints and appeals process for education, health and care plans? Clarity would be very much appreciated.
	On part 2 of the Bill, I am conscious that I am following my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), who spoke to the amendment to clause 11. The noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss, who moved the amendment, is widely acknowledged as the country’s greatest expert, so it is with some trepidation that I raise the issue. She sought to clarify what exactly the clause means in practical application regarding non-resident parents. My fear is that, in so doing, the clause, which sought to enshrine the right of the child to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with both parents, is watered down. I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.
	The welfare of the child should be the court’s paramount concern, but it should not be the court’s only concern. The legal system must ensure that the child’s welfare comes first, but it should not ignore the welfare of parents, whether a mother or a father. Few people consider the emotional and psychological impact that enforced separation from one’s own flesh and blood can have. The unintended negative consequence of the paramountcy principle is that the feelings of separated parents are simply not considered. That situation must change in the interests of justice for parents. It is also sound public policy and will lead to children being less damaged by their parents’ separation.
	However, even considering only the benefits of shared parenting from the perspective of child welfare, volumes of research show that shared parenting is hugely beneficial to children, especially when a father is separated from his daughter. Contact is more likely to decline if the child is female, meaning that young girls pay a heavier price for divorce and separation than young boys, as Dr Linda Nielsen’s recent paper sets out. Indeed, the paramountcy principle applied correctly so that the welfare of the child comes first means encouraging shared parenting, not discouraging or paying lip service to it. That is the core of my concern with the amendment. It appears to erode the positive steps that the clause originally made towards a culture of shared parenting.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend is exceptionally well known for her commitment to improving the lives of children, especially those with special educational needs and those caught up in what can be the misery of separated parents. However, does she agree that the major part of the problem is the failure of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the courts to intervene and take a genuine stand against obstructive parents who engage in parental alienation and prevent court order access, which damages both the relationship between, and the mental health of, the child and the non-resident parent?

Caroline Nokes: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. CAFCASS has an incredibly difficult job to do, but too often it fails to deal with issues such as parental alienation, and it is important that we consider the problem of poor enforcement of contact orders when non-resident parents are granted access but resident parents ignore them.
	The current situation does not work, and both coalition partners gave commitments on several areas relating to family law reform. Some of those issues—mediation and dispute resolution, better enforcement of contact
	orders and, I hope, reform of court practices—will be genuinely improved by the Bill, but both coalition partners also gave clear commitments on the subject of shared parenting or shared contact. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister said that courts are seen as creating winners and losers, and it is vital that both parents feel confident that the court will consider fully the benefits of their involvement.
	The Government have worked hard to strike the right balance, called for by groups such as Families Need Fathers, UK Family Law Reform and the Association for Shared Parenting. Clearly, the legislative intent of clause 11 was to bridge the gap between delivering tangible progress on shared parenting while ensuring the paramount need of the child’s welfare was preserved through a presumption in favour of shared contact, providing there was no good reason to oppose it.
	I was elected on a promise to seek a legal presumption in favour of automatic shared contact, something that the Bill achieved before the amendment was added, but clause 11, as amended, will not deliver what we promised. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point and confirm that I am incorrect in that. There is a whole library of research showing the benefits to a child of a proper, meaningful and ongoing relationship with the non-resident parent. If, as a society, we are genuinely interested in tackling the impact of family breakdown, we must start by encouraging and enabling non-resident parents to remain active in their children’s lives.
	The amendment plays into the hands of obstructive resident parents who wish to prevent a child from having a meaningful, ongoing relationship with an absent parent, and puts us back into a situation of winners and losers. Some 10% to 20% of separations—often those that are the most rancorous and upsetting, and in which winners and losers are created—come before the courts. It is right that the court should be bound by the paramountcy principle, but the culture of shared parenting should be driven home, forcing hitherto hostile and oppositional parents to work together in the interests of their child.
	I hope that the Minister can provide me with the reassurance I seek. Apart from that, I believe this to be an excellent Bill on which we have all worked long and hard. I support the rest of the clauses and the amendments, and thank him for his attention on these matters.

Charlie Elphicke: I, too, have a long history with the Bill, having served in Committee, and being here for its final Commons stage today. It has been a real privilege to watch a master class from my hon. Friend the Minister in how to pilot a Bill with great dignity, courtesy and endless quantities of patience.
	I also wish to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, who is no longer in her place but performed her role in Committee with great aplomb. She has handed over to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), whom I pressed earlier on the subject of childminders. It has been a pleasure to serve on this landmark Bill, and it will also be a pleasure to see it brought into force.
	I shall concentrate on one basic statistic. In 1986, the employment rate for mothers whose youngest child is under three was 25%. Today, it is 56% and rising. That
	matters because it says everything about how the world has changed. If so many more women are in work—more than half of all mothers with children under three—child care is instantly an issue. That is why I raised the issue of childminders. In my constituency, if a family is above the benefits threshold but cannot afford £10,000 or so a year for a nursery, it has a real problem. That is why childminders are so important for that intermediate child care and why I make the case for the need to consider people in that salary band. There is a lot of deprivation in my constituency, and many people in low-skilled, low-paid work are in that position.
	It also means that, because both partners are in work, parental love, affection and child care have to be juggled. Involvement in the child’s life has been transformed in the past 25 years: fathers are more involved with their children. Both parents are more involved with their children than ever before because of social change. That is why I welcome the changes in the Bill that relate to parental leave. Shared parental leave is a recognition of how the world has changed so very much.
	I have raised the issue of contact many times in this place: the rights of children to have access to their parents. I thank the shadow Minister for using that formulation, because it is very important. It is a damning statistic that, of the 3 million children who live apart from a parent, 1 million have no contact with a parent three years after separation. That is really tragic, particularly given the way the world has changed. One parent, who was heavily involved in a child’s upbringing, is suddenly no longer there at all. That is destabilising to the child. That is why, in times past, I brought in a Bill to this House to enforce contact properly and place a duty on all. The right is not the right of the parent, but the right of the child to know and have a relationship with both their parents: the right of the child to have access to their parents.
	This massive social change over the past 25 years matters so much because not all our judiciary are young people living the lives of modern parents seeking to get by. Not all academics or our social work establishment are young and as aware as they could be in their daily lives of this particular situation. It is for that reason that I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on her passionate, heartfelt and deeply thoughtful speech. She is absolutely right in all she says. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on taking up this case originally and putting it forward.
	The statistic on the involvement of both parents in the life of their child is particularly relevant to clause 11, which states
	“unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.”
	I, too, share the concerns raised today that the amendment originally tabled by Baroness Butler-Sloss in the Lords Grand Committee risks watering that down. I recognise my hon. Friend the Minister’s assurances when he says that he is confident that the amendment does not alter the meaning of the clause or its intended effect. I hope that that will be reflected in the guidance issued to the family division, and that the family division will take note of that. It is really important that this principle is
	not ceded, particularly given that Baroness Butler-Sloss included not just the irrelevant issue of the division of a child’s time that resulted from the Norgrove report getting distracted by the Australian experience and the issue of the direct and indirect access.
	It would not be right to have a situation in which the only contact for a parent who has been heavily involved in a child’s life is just a phone call at Christmas, a book of photographs or the odd letter exchange. That does not constitute a right to know and a relationship with both parents. The right of children to have access to both their parents is essential. It matters because they may wish to turn one parent or to the other parent for mentorship, guidance, love and affection. We should enable that to happen. We should recognise that the world has changed.

Tessa Munt: Of course, children will have access to their further family through both parents, so it is critical that they have an absolute right to direct, physical contact, and that should be a presumption, unless there is a proven safety reason.

Charlie Elphicke: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend, who has been a staunch supporter of this principle in her time here. I thank her for her support in times past.
	In closing, I want to note what Baroness Butler-Sloss said in another place:
	“I had very useful discussions with an organisation, Families Need Fathers, and I ask the Minister to see that any information that is sent out to various organisations also goes to that one because it has an utterly sensible approach. It is very keen that the non-resident parent should have a proper connection with the child to further the child’s welfare, but recognises that it is not shared parenting. It is an extremely useful organisation and I commend it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 206.]

Brian Binley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on introducing his private Member’s Bill, which followed mine a couple of years ago. I am concerned that Butler-Sloss’s amendment will water down the rights that we want to create for parents of either sex who do not generally live with the family. I urge the Minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be absolutely firm on this point—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is so long he has lost sight of the fact that there has been a sex change in the Chair. I think he has completed his intervention, for which the House is inordinately grateful.

Brian Binley: You would not want me to respond, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Probably not.

Charlie Elphicke: May I be the first to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Speaker? I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who has been passionate about these issues for many years. Many of us have made common cause on this matter.
	In conclusion, I simply enjoin the Minister to take up Baroness Butler-Sloss’s recommendation, in line with the guidance of Families Need Fathers, and to work positively to ensure that children have a right of access to both their parents and that the amendment is not misconstrued.

Edward Timpson: I would like to thank all hon. Members who have engaged in this detailed—

Mr Speaker: I think the Minister has asked the leave of the House, hasn’t he?

Edward Timpson: It almost passed my lips, and it has done now.
	This has been a detailed debate of the amendments made to the Bill in another place. The changes are a testament to the dedication of both Houses to making the Bill the best it can be, and I completely understand the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in its implementation: it is an excellent Bill, and it is only right that we ensure its successful implementation. Provided we can find time for early and proper consideration of the secondary legislation, we expect to implement the Bill’s reforms quickly so that they can begin to make a real difference for children and families across the country.
	I will seek to write to all hon. Members who have asked detailed questions in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) asked when the revised code of practice would be made available. It will be made available as soon as possible after Royal Assent, but I am sure he will appreciate that we want to get it right. My hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—I hope that this last heard my earlier praise for his involvement in this important clause—raised important points. As the Bill stands, the presumption is clear, and I do not share the scepticism of some hon. Members that it has been diluted to the point of having no effect. This is a considerable change and should not be underestimated.
	The principle and purpose that the Bill enshrines in law, in conjunction with many other measures we are taking, both through the Bill and in non-legislative ways, will help to ensure that more children have the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents. To enable that to happen in practice, we have made sure that the Judicial College is aware of the provision in clause 11 and the Government’s objective behind it. Although it is for the judiciary to consider its required training itself, we will continue to work with it to ensure that there is clear information about the intended effect and operation of the clause, so that they can be reflected, if need be, in future training.
	It is important to make it clear that this is about the right of the child. The reason we have set about introducing the provisions in this clause—over many years, both in opposition and now in government—is to put across a strong message to many of the families who find themselves at the door of a court: we are interested in only one thing, which is making sure that any children involved in a case get the opportunity to have their rights put first and, as a consequence, have a meaningful relationship with both sides of their parentage.

Tessa Munt: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Timpson: Very briefly.

Tessa Munt: Will the Minister clarify absolutely that the presumption is that children should always have a right to have access to both parents, unless it is proven that it is not safe for them to be with one parent or the other?

Edward Timpson: As I made clear earlier in the debate, the paramountcy principle still holds in this case, as does the need to ensure that the child in question would be safe. That has to be the case, but what kicks in under those circumstances is the presumption that the child will have a relationship with both parents. That is an important change that we should all support.
	Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to share some well deserved thanks.

Jim Shannon: On a day when 3.2 million diabetics are registered in the United Kingdom and we are seeing a rise in type 1 diabetes among children, will the Minister confirm that the duty to support pupils with medical conditions means that insulin pumps will be available and one or two teachers will be available and able to understand how to deal with diabetic hypos?

Edward Timpson: The clause in question puts the “Managing medicines” guidance on a statutory footing. That has long been called for and is a significant change. The equipment that will be available in schools is still a matter of discretion, but we look at these things carefully, particularly when it comes to defibrillators and the important role they play in schools, as well as other public spaces. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the advance that we have made on that aspect of the Bill.
	It now feels like a very long time ago that work on the Bill began. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said at the end of Committee last April:
	“We seem to have been scrutinising the Bill for months”.––[Official Report, Children and Families Public Bill Committee, 25 April 2013; c. 815.]
	That was nine months ago, so it is fair to say that we have been working on this Bill for a long time now. However, it is only right to acknowledge the four Select Committees that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill—the Select Committees on Education and on Justice, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation—and the great start they got us off to.
	We have had some excellent debates in this House on the Bill. I would like to thank hon. Members for their participation and for how supportive they have been in helping the Government to develop the Bill. An illustration of how much work has been done is that, in both Houses together, 1,153 amendments have been tabled and debated. The Bill started off as a very good piece of legislation; with all the constructive and well-meaning work that we and Members of another place have done on it, I believe it is now a great piece of legislation. We should all be very pleased about that and the benefits that children, young people and their families will see as a consequence.
	I am sure we all appreciate the hard work of the Clerks of the House and the Hansard reporters throughout the passage of the Bill, which I know has involved some late nights for them, for which I take some responsibility. If it is any consolation to them, I have also had a fair few sleepless nights—not that my children and family have had much sympathy with that. I also thank the many organisations that have engaged with us on the Bill, all of which have made an important contribution. I hope that they will continue to work with the Department as we proceed with the key task of successful implementation. A good many Ministers have been involved in the various stages of the Bill, and they deserve thanks as well.
	I thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who initiated this work with such vigour and aplomb. I thank my hon. Friend the Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), with whom I have had the delight of sharing the Front Bench as a minority male. Importantly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who shares my passionate determination to improve the lives of our most disadvantaged young people, and has not a capricious bone in his body: he has only compassionate bones.
	I thank all our colleagues in the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who have done so much to put departmental boundaries aside in the interests of children and families. Finally, I particularly thank my friends in the other place: Lord Nash—who has been stoic, good-humoured and unflappable—Lord Faulks, Lord McNally, Viscount Younger and Earl Howe; and I thank my noble Friend Baroness Northover for picking up the baton from Baroness Garden with such prowess and nerveless enthusiasm.
	It has been an undiluted and, as it has turned out, a long-standing privilege to work on a Bill which will make a real difference to children and families, and which we have been able to manage in this place in ways that have been very constructive and often even consensual. In that context, I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Washington and Sunderland West for their leadership during the Bill’s earlier outings in this House, and to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who have continued to work in the same spirit today.
	Today we have recognised, and heard from, Members in all parts of the House who are passionate and committed in their pursuit of improvements for our most vulnerable children. Let me repeat my thanks to all of them, and particularly to those who were members of the Public Bill Committee between 5 March and 25 April last year: my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and the hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Manchester Central, for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and for Corby (Andy Sawford).
	It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the pivotal roles of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Anne Milton) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) in securing the Bill’s safe passage by virtue of their professional and tactful stewardship. Numerous officials from various Departments have worked very hard on the Bill, and I am sure that the House will want thank them as well.
	I cannot end my speech without singling out for special mention the Bill team and other Government officials, led with such distinction by Jenny Preece. I thank Jamie, Alan, Lara, Helen, Ruth, Katy, Lizzie, the lead lawyers Sofie, Paula and their colleagues, Phil, Stephen, Jonathan and everyone in the special educational needs team, and all the officials and lawyers—too many to mention—in several Departments who have contributed to the development, drafting and scrutiny of the Bill. Their efforts usually go unnoticed and undetected, and are carried out without fanfare. I, along with other Ministers and all Members—as well as you, Mr Speaker—owe them enormous gratitude. It has been an absolute delight to work with each and every one of them.
	I hope that the House will agree that all the amendments made by another place are beneficial to the Bill and, ultimately, to children and their families. If so, we can then move on speedily to the task of turning this legislation into something that has meaning and impact, and, above all, is able to make young lives better.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 120, 126 to 149 and 151 to 176 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 15, 17 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to 31, 33 to 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, 64, 66, 85, 88 to 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 104 to 109, 115 to 118, 126 to 129, 135, 144, 149 and 176.

Presumption of Innocence and EU Law

[Relevant document: The thirty-second report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xxix, Chapter 1.]

Shailesh Vara: I beg to move,
	That this House considers that the Draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings (European Union Document No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Thirty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxix); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
	Tonight’s debate is about this House having its say on proposals from the European Commission which touch on matters at the very heart of our country’s justice system. The House has the opportunity to endorse the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee’s reasoned opinion that the European Commission’s proposal on the presumption of innocence breaches the principle of subsidiarity.
	I want to be clear from the outset that this is a matter for the House and it is not the Government’s decision. The treaties give this House, and all national chambers, the right to issue reasoned opinions on the principle of subsidiarity, and that is what this debate is about: the question of subsidiarity. It is not about the question of the UK’s opt-in. I am happy to assure Members that the Government have offered time to debate the opt-in separately, ahead of the Government’s final decision. We look forward to hearing the Committee’s view on that in order to inform that decision.
	The House will appreciate that questions of subsidiarity are finely balanced and we welcome the opportunity for this House to present its view directly to the European Union—a right this Government will defend and facilitate to the hilt. The idea of subsidiarity is that decision-making should take place as closely as possible to the citizens whom those decisions affect. Under article 5 of protocol 2 to the treaties, the Commission needs to set out, among other things, a detailed statement on how its proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. The reasons for concluding that the objective of the proposal can be achieved at EU level must be substantiated by qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators. To underline the importance of this, the treaties provide that national Parliaments—and chambers within national Parliaments—can deliver reasoned opinions to the Presidents of the EU institutions where they consider that the Commission has breached the subsidiarity principle.
	The proposal the Commission has put before us relates to the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of our country’s justice system, as it is of many other countries’ justice systems. No one in this House would seriously doubt our commitment to the principle. It stretches back as far as Roman times and is a central pillar of our common law system, as well as the common law systems in other countries. Moreover, it has been enshrined and developed in many civil law systems on the continent itself.
	The principle is set out in the universal declaration of human rights and in the European convention on human rights. It is contained in the French declaration of the rights of man, and countless other constitutions around the globe. The problem, and the issue for debate tonight, is specifically whether EU action in this area can be justified or whether this is a matter for member states.
	The Commission bases its argument for the proposal on the fact that member states are being effectively barred from co-operating in criminal matters because of differing standards in this area. Here I can only endorse the view set out in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report that the case simply has not been made. The Commission itself admits that evidence is scanty. It may be true that specific rules vary, and that specific practices and laws will not be identical across our different jurisdictions. Indeed, it is worth noting in passing that specific rules vary even across the United Kingdom, but that has, to my knowledge, never acted as a barrier to the co-operation of our justice systems.
	We should remember that all member states are bound by the European convention. All member states should be meeting those basic standards already. As the Committee points out in the draft reasoned opinion, if there are cultural issues at play in a country’s justice system, a further piece of legislation from the EU will not resolve them.

Alan Beith: The point that I am about to make will not necessarily appeal to all the Minister’s colleagues. Would it not be rather unsatisfactory if we found ourselves in a situation in which the right to a fair trial was justiciable in the European Court of Justice, rather than being dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights and by the application of the European convention on human rights in UK domestic law, which are the ways in which we have long agreed that such matters should be resolved?

Shailesh Vara: As always, my right hon. Friend makes a relevant point. For the purposes of today’s debate, however, I shall confine myself to the presumption of innocence. I am mindful that we have only 90 minutes for our debate, and many hon. Members wish to speak, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who I am sure will want to have a decent say in the matter, in his own way.
	Mutual trust and recognition are of course important in ensuring that European justice systems can operate together when crimes span borders, but without solid evidence, that mutual trust is in practice being adversely affected by these national differences. The Commission’s case for action has not been made. There is also a much broader issue at stake. As I said, this matter lies at the very heart of our justice systems as sovereign countries.
	The presumption of innocence is at the core of the rights and protections we afford in our laws and traditions, and in our constitutions, to those accused of committing a crime. That instinctively feels like a matter on which member states themselves should be making decisions. In so far as we can conclude that minimum standards are a legitimate aim—as it seems the Commission has done here—action needs to be taken at EU level, but under the terms of the treaties that permit the setting of minimum standards across the EU, we need to be wary of the Commission bringing forward totally unnecessary
	proposals under the umbrella of securing mutual trust and recognition. It will always claim to have passed the subsidiarity test, even when others have their doubts.
	The process from here is that the reasoned opinion, if approved by the House, will be presented to the Presidents of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. If sufficient numbers of other Parliaments do likewise, the Commission will be presented with its yellow card and must rethink the proposal.

William Cash: Given the great significance that my hon. Friend has rightly given to the contents of our report and to the substance of this issue, is he concerned that, as far as we know, the only other Parliament in the whole of the European Union to have tabled a reasoned opinion at this time is the Scottish Parliament?

Shailesh Vara: As always, my hon. Friend shows his great knowledge of this area, right up to the minute. He will appreciate that I can speak only for this Parliament, but I hear what he says. I am aware that my officials have been speaking to other Parliaments, but I do not know the position as regards those other member states at this time. He is quite right to suggest that, as far as justice and home affairs issues are concerned, a quarter of all member states need to have tabled a reasoned opinion in order for a yellow card to apply. In other matters, it is a third of all member states. On that note, it is worth noting that the Government wholeheartedly support the role of national Parliaments in supporting this reasoned opinion.
	The Commission’s track record in this respect is not a good one. When presented with its first yellow card on the Monti II proposal, relating to the posting of workers and the right to take collective action, the Commission withdrew the proposal. However, it claimed that that had nothing to do with subsidiarity and that there was not the political will to pass the measure. More worrying was the occasion on which this House, the other place and 10 other Parliaments of EU member states issued a yellow card in respect of the proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office. The Commission barely flinched before continuing with its plans.

Julian Smith: Does the story that the Minister has just told make him feel that, given the new landscape of the EU, we need to adopt a red card system?

Shailesh Vara: We need to consider a lot of things in terms of our future relationship and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Prime Minister has promised a major undertaking on reforming the way forward. It will be for the public to decide, in due course, whether there is a Conservative Government, with a referendum to follow on from that.

William Cash: On the red card, does my hon. Friend accept that, in line with the fourth principle of the Bloomberg speech, which is that national Parliaments are the root of our democracy, there are circumstances in the national interest where a mere collection—an aggregation; a small number—of countries coming together on a red card would not be enough and that, in line with
	precedents, it would be advisable for the United Kingdom Government to accept the idea of the disapplication of laws altogether?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend, as always, makes a relevant and pertinent point, but he will appreciate that I am not going to give a definitive answer either way at the Dispatch Box.
	Notwithstanding the difficulties, we must try to make our position known to the Commission. The Government will support this House and the other place in presenting reasoned opinions on subsidiarity, as and when they choose to do so. On the basis of what the Government have considered so far, we do not believe that the case for action has been made. However, as I said, this is a matter for the House to decide on, and I very much look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.

Andy Slaughter: I will try to follow the Minister’s example and be commendably brief—I do not anticipate being intervened on by Labour Members very often this evening.
	I begin by complimenting the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chair on the rigour and clarity that they bring to this matter, contrasted as it is—it saddens me to say so to this Minister—with the pusillanimous response of the Government until this evening. The Committee’s report rightly states:
	“It is difficult to overstate the significance of the Commission’s proposal. It brings the law of the presumption of innocence, as laid down by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and in the constitutional or national laws of Member States, into the realm of EU law, which has supremacy over national law, for all criminal offences. In so doing it sets out certain rights which go further than the interpretation of similar rights in the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights, and so creates separate standards of procedural safeguard under EU and ECHR law. A domestic consequence of this is that UK laws on drawing adverse inferences from a failure to cooperate or from maintaining the right to silence, which are compliant with the ECHR, would be in conflict with EU law, and so subject to Commission infringement proceedings and severe financial penalty if not amended.”
	That must be right. These are matters of central importance to the liberty of the subject, the rule of law and, above all, the right to a fair trial. This is a country where those seminal legal concepts have developed over centuries. It is right that the Secretary of State is commemorating 800 years of Magna Carta, although it is sad that his alienation of the legal profession means, as we learn today, that there may be a boycott of his global law summit next year. By the same token the law, specifically the common law, has developed differently here from how it has on the continent. There will be significant differences in our approach from that of Roman law jurisdictions. But that does not mean we should not try to establish certain minimum standards in areas as fundamental as the presumption of innocence and the specific requirements set out in the articles of the draft directive.
	The matters dealt with in that directive—the right not to be presented as guilty; the burden of proof resting on the prosecution; the right to remain silent; and the fact that the scope of those should go from the very start of proceedings until the final judgment is delivered—are right. I hope the Committee and the Minister are as alarmed as I am to see that 11 member states appear to
	have fallen below the standards demanded by the ECHR. One reason for our strong support—I believe this is still shared by the junior coalition partner—for the convention is the levelling-up effect it has on human rights across Europe.
	The problem with translating that alarm into this legislation is, as the Committee identifies, twofold. First, it is not the difference in standards or the falling short per se that provokes the draft directive, but the alleged effect that has on confidence in the judicial systems in states that are failing. There is anecdotal evidence to support that; indeed, much of the debate about the European arrest warrant focused on worries about the criminal justice system in the extraditing state. However, as the Commission itself concedes, there is “limited statistical quantifiable evidence”, and that is not a good basis for such a radical restructuring of European criminal law.
	Radical though the draft directive may be—this is the second problem—it goes beyond what the ECHR demands. For example, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent legislation, it is permitted in English criminal courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. The burden of proof does not always lie on the prosecution, and the right to representation, interpretation and translation varies at different stages of the criminal process. I do not seek to defend the law in its current form by saying that, but I do say that the directive is not the means by which to open a wholesale review of those and other provisions of the criminal law.
	The Commission has not made its case on subsidiarity, it has not produced evidence, and the consequences of the proposal go beyond what is countenanced in the Commission’s arguments. The Government, taxed by the European Scrutiny Committee, have fallen in line with that view at the eleventh hour, so the Minister, whether for a quiet life or because it is easier to adopt the arguments in the reasoned opinion, has taken the path of least resistance.
	It is a pity, however, that legislation is being made in such a way. The Committee is trenchant in its criticism of the Government, concluding:
	“We repeat again our disappointment at the poor quality of the Government’s EMs on the three proposals forming the Commission’s procedural rights package, particularly in the light of the time taken to draft and deposit them.”
	This is not an isolated incident, as last month the regulatory policy committee described the Ministry’s impact assessment on court fees as “not fit for purpose” in a rare red report. Just before Christmas, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to several explanatory memorandums accompanying statutory instruments as “less than satisfactory”. Last week, the new Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), at last conceded that the number of mediations taking place was falling significantly, which was something that the Justice Secretary repeatedly denied.
	In the case of the draft directive, I appreciate that, as with the other examples I cited, we got our corrections eventually, albeit not without a lot of digging. It took a strongly worded letter from the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee on 15 January to elicit some but not all the facts needed from the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), had to write
	to the Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to apologise for and reissue the defective explanatory memorandums. Can he offer some explanation for the poor quality of legislation, statistics, reasoning and clarity coming out of his Department? I suspect it is due in part to the swingeing cuts in staff and low morale, but there might be other reasons that he wishes to offer.
	While we share some of the Commission’s concerns about the standards adopted by a number of EU countries regarding the matters dealt with by the draft directive, we do not think the directive is the route by which to correct them. We will not oppose the reasoned opinion, but we note that it is the European Scrutiny Committee, not the UK Government, that has led on the issue, and that does not bode well for sound governance.

William Cash: I am glad to say that the two Front-Bench speeches have combined to encapsulate all the arguments. While I have some comments to make about the Government’s position, I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), because he drew out several of the European Scrutiny Committee’s concerns. I am sure that the Minister, having somewhat belatedly reached the conclusion that improvements were required, will acknowledge that, and that everyone will be satisfied, given that we are now considering a motion on forwarding a reasoned opinion.
	As I pointed out in an intervention, for all the brickbats, congratulations and backslapping that might be coming from either side of the House, as things stand, there is a more worrying matter to consider. If the Minister has received late information that more member states are prepared to deal with the matter properly, that would be useful for me, as Chairman of the Committee, to know. The hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly quoted the Committee as saying:
	“It is difficult to overstate the significance of the Commission’s proposal.”
	Against that background, and knowing the number of member states required for the yellow card procedure—we currently have the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, unless some others have come into the framework and I am not yet aware of that—there is clearly no prospect of this reasoned opinion receiving the kind of attention from other member states that it should receive. I say that because we still have a window in which to sort the matter out, but it is not a very long one, and I must say that it does not bode well given the significance of the issues at stake.

David Nuttall: On that point, surely the Commission will not regard the Scottish Parliament’s submission as relevant to this matter. Surely only a submission from this Parliament will be regarded as relevant.

William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I rather agree with him. Whatever the aspirations of the Scottish nationalists and those campaigning for independence, I am afraid that at this juncture what they have to say, however worthy it may be, will not be within the criteria set out for reasoned opinions under the yellow card system.
	I ought to say that I have had grave reservations about the yellow card system from the very beginning. I have never thought that it is a matter that should be decided by an aggregation of member states—if they choose number X, why not choose number Y? The fact is that if a member state wishes to act, in its own national interests—the Minister, judging by what he said, regards this as a matter of critical national interest—I suggest that the reason for disapplying or vetoing laws should rest with one member state, as my Committee’s report made clear, because it becomes invidious to choose a particular number rather than another.
	The real question is whether the matter is sufficiently important in the interests of the democracies, the legislatures and the constitutional arrangements of a given country for there to be a veto. Indeed, I must commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who vetoed a treaty only a few months ago, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For this purpose, I think that there is a very strong case, where it is sufficiently important in the national interest, to go beyond the yellow card system.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: While my hon. Friend is talking about the yellow card system, is it not worth pointing out that the judge of whether the threshold is well enough argued once it has been met is the European Commission itself, so it ends up judging its own decision?

William Cash: My hon. Friend, as ever, is completely correct. In the case of the European public prosecutor, the threshold was actually exceeded, and what did the Commission do? It just said that it would go ahead anyway, with complete contempt for our Parliament and the others. That is really what is at stake in these circumstances. It is extremely disturbing. There is no need to enlarge that argument, so I will leave it at that.
	We have had a fair description of what the measure is about from those on the Front Benches, so I will simply draw the House’s attention to the fact that, with regard to process, it is unreasonable to expect Parliament to come to an informed view on compliance with subsidiarity within the eight-week time frame allotted for issuing a reasoned opinion without the benefit of an analysis by the Government. The Minister, who may have been drawn into this somewhat at the last moment, would perhaps agree with that; I hope so.
	Why was it only at the second time of asking, in a letter sent four days before this debate, that the Government gave a clearer indication of their view on subsidiarity? To put it bluntly, the Government have been prevaricating; they were not clear about their position until very recently. On the substance, however, I welcome the fact that in that letter the Government have belatedly accepted that
	“a lack of evidence of necessity renders a proposal in breach of the subsidiarity principle”.
	I would have thought that that was an unexceptional circumstance, but I nevertheless welcome it. I also welcome the fact that, given that the Government have accepted that the Commission has not complied with the procedural requirements placed on it to provide a detailed statement appraising compliance with subsidiarity, the Commission
	has agreed with the European Scrutiny Committee. We relied on both those arguments in our reasoned opinion, and we are therefore grateful and glad that the Minister has decided to support our proposal.
	We note—I would be grateful if the Minister responded to this point—that the Government’s view is still conditional. There is a little bit of fudging going on. They use the phrase,
	“if in principle the need were to be established”.
	From what source—other than the impact assessment, which lacks the necessary evidence—do the Government think the Commission will be able to establish evidence of need? We also note that the Commission recognises that there is—believe it or not, in relation to a matter of this importance—
	“limited statistical quantifiable evidence on insufficient mutual trust between the Member States”.
	How, therefore, can there be the slightest justification for action at EU level? These are not mere words; they are about the application of the presumption of innocence in relation to EU law.
	On a technical point, the legal base of article 82(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union specifically requires evidence of necessity to facilitate mutual recognition. On the difference between the approach to the European convention on human rights taken by the EU and by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, I ask the Government to what extent they agree with the paragraph in the Commission’s impact assessment cited in the draft reasoned opinion, as follows:
	“The ECtHR’s reluctance to lay down prescriptive requirements in these areas, which can be seen as a rationale for an EU measure. The approach of the ECtHR has not been especially activist in developing detailed and prescriptive rules in the area of Article 6(2) of the ECHR. It has left a margin of flexibility for presumption of innocence and related rights in light of the requirement to balance the fair trial rights of suspects”—
	I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who is Chairman of the Justice Committee, will appreciate that—
	“or accused persons with the general public interest, as well as the diverse legal traditions of Member States.”
	The Committee concluded that not being “especially activist” was a trait that we strongly welcomed and should inform the decisions of any supra-national court.
	We have produced our report and we are grateful that the Government have somewhat belatedly come to the right conclusions on this. We regret that it is only in the past few days that we have got fully engaged with this subject, but we are now glad that the reasoned opinion will go from this Parliament to the European Commission with the support of the sole Member on the Opposition Benches as personified by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It is important that we do it, but what worries me is that it looks as though it will be doomed unless other member states come forward. If they are not as interested as we are in the matters raised by our Committee, that will be very sad for the European Union as a whole.

Richard Shepherd: I just want to add a few words to this conversation. I commend the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on setting out so well the anxieties many
	of us will feel. It is not very long ago in our history that we were enormously proud of both our constitution and our legal system. It is, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a common law system that covers Northern Ireland, England and Wales in our own domestic competence.
	We should not ignore the simple fact that the legal system is an intimate facet of nationhood and the lines by which we govern ourselves. Ours has been a very long march to get where we are today. I think it was with Edward III—I have no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong—that we started the separation of the judiciary from the monarchy, which led to the development of our judicial system. I think that is how most schoolboys of my generation understood its development.
	The right to have a legal form that has withstood that number of centuries is not a casual thing. It is the most extensive, worldwide system of justice: one thinks of India, Australia, Canada, the United States and South Africa. It is a huge range, yet the way in which the Government have come to their conclusion confronts us with a clear loss of confidence in the very essence of what this Parliament is about and who we are. We cannot divorce ourselves from that tradition and one cannot accept that it will be swept aside by mandates from bureaucrats on the European continent. This is not an attack on them; it is an argument for confidence in our own constitution and legal system.
	I believe, although some will disagree, that, by and large, the people of this country have confidence in our legal system and the fact that it will secure their liberty. The equal recognition of different judicial systems is a very alien concept. The rules and laws of Roman law and civic law are different from our laws. We do it case by case, and from that we found a tradition of what enforces the things that matter to this country—the defence of something absolutely essential to the development of our freedoms and liberty.
	I wish the European Union well, but I do not think it should trespass into areas that are absolutely central to the sovereignty of the British people. That is why I am pleased that the report so assiduously crafted by the European Scrutiny Committee is central to this debate.
	I have dealt in mere generality, but a profound concept is under attack. Our judicial system—the biggest and most important in the world—should not be subservient to a bureaucratic administrative system designated and designed elsewhere with the central purpose of consolidating the power of the European Union. That is why I am pleased that the Government have at last woken up to the very fact that this is about our law, our legal system, our freedoms, our independence and the right of the people of this country to determine what systems they should live under.

David Nuttall: Let me start, Mr Speaker, by apologising for missing the Minister’s opening comments.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and the members of his Committee for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is yet another example of the fine work that they do in scrutinising and painstakingly going through the masses—hundreds and hundreds—of EU regulations and directives
	that emanate from Brussels to identify those that are worthy of consideration in debate on the Floor of the House.
	This is such a measure and, frankly, it goes to the very heart of the British legal system—the presumption of innocence. Quite frankly, it is staggering that the EU should try to lecture this country. That is what it boils down to: the EU is trying to tell this country how to run its justice system, and trying to interfere with what we determine about the innocence of a subject until they are proven guilty in a court of law. This is just a further building block that the EU Commission sees as a stepping stone on its way to building an EU-wide common system of criminal justice, but it is one that we ought strenuously to oppose.
	I am quite happy that we are being asked to approve the Government’s proposal to send a reasoned opinion back to Europe about why the measure fails the test of subsidiarity. In my mind, it certainly does fail that test, but like other hon. Members, I am extremely concerned that it appears that we will once again stand alone in our opposition to it. My understanding—I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether it is correct—is that the deadline for objections from member states is 12 February. If that is the case, there is very little time for this Parliament or any others to lodge objections. It therefore seems likely, although I wish it were not the case, that the measure will pass.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my hon. Friend take the comfort that I do from the Government’s firm stance, in that even if no other Parliament sends in a reasoned opinion against the proposal, it would be eccentric of the Government, because it is subject to our title 5 opt-out, to opt in to one that is thought not to meet the test of subsidiarity?

David Nuttall: Absolutely. I for one certainly hope that the Government will not feel that it is necessary to bow to the will of Brussels on this measure. Although I am at one and in accord with the Government on their proposal this evening, I would have to depart from that course if they tried in future to suggest that we should adopt it given that the European Commission seems likely to pursue it. Bearing in mind this country’s proud history of establishing our own system of common law and the rights of an individual to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, I see no reason why we need lecturing from the EU on this matter.

William Cash: Has my hon. Friend noticed that this matter has received almost no coverage in the media, particularly the BBC? Perhaps they will rectify that as a result of this debate. This is a serious matter and the British public must know what is going on, but there are limited opportunities for them to find out about it. If this proposal were in a Bill that dealt with the abolition of trial by jury, it would have to go through at least three stages in each House and would be subject to amendments in both Houses. Because it is in a directive, all we are left with is putting up a reasoned amendment that will be doomed if other member states disagree.

David Nuttall: The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, as ever on these matters, is right. This proposal has not received adequate scrutiny in the media. There may be many reasons for that.
	This is another example of the EU interfering in matters that are a million miles away from the areas that the vast majority of the British people want us and our European neighbours to deal with. The British people want us have free trade with our European neighbours; they do not want the European Union to interfere in matters of criminal justice. This is just one example of why, when it comes to a referendum, I believe that millions of my fellow citizens will agree with me that we would be better off out of the European Union and that we should simply trade with our European neighbours on a free trade basis.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the Members who have contributed to this debate. It is good to see that there is agreement, because often there is not on this subject.
	I made it clear at the outset that this was a matter for the House and that the Government were facilitating its consideration. Members have said loudly and clearly that they support the reasoned opinion of the European Scrutiny Committee and its submission to the European Union institutions.
	I will address some of the points that have been raised by Members. When the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) spoke, he had no support from the Opposition Benches. However, he has a reputation for more than making up for that through his use of words. He did that today, as he always does. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for their contributions.
	I want to respond on the record to the point that was made about the explanatory memorandums that were submitted. Five instruments were received at the outset, which was a lot of information. We tried to supply the House with as much information as possible within the time constraints that were on us. We provided the explanatory memorandums and there was criticism of them. Letters were passed between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Department. We subsequently provided further information. The Justice Secretary has apologised for the delay and given an assurance that we will try to provide more full and more timely responses in future. I have no hesitation in reiterating that apology.
	The red card system is difficult to use in practice because Parliament cannot simply rid the UK of its obligations. Under the European Communities Act 1972, as the law stands we cannot pick and choose which EU law to implement beyond the terms of our opt-in for justice and home affairs matters.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is it not open to the House to amend the 1972 Act?

Shailesh Vara: Given the Prime Minister’s assurance that we will try to renegotiate a whole series of measures, I think the best way forward is to have that engagement with the European Union, get a series of proposals, and then go to the country for people to have the final say. The 1972 Act has existed for a long time, and there is not long to go from now.

William Cash: I am bound to point out that the 1972 Act was passed in pursuance of the 1971 White Paper. The 1972 Act itself has not changed materially, but the number of functions and the invasion of the United Kingdom legislature has continued inexorably since then. That 1971 White Paper specifically guaranteed—and therefore that guarantee would seem still to be valid—that we would never give up the veto because it was in our vital national interest. To do otherwise would endanger the fabric of the European Union, which appears to be doing a very good job of destroying itself.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I repeat that there is not long to go. If there is a Conservative victory, we will renegotiate, and the issues that he raises, as well as a whole series of other issues, will be put to the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about the European Union trespassing into matters that have been so important to our judicial system over centuries, and I could not agree with him more. As always, he was passionate about what he said, and almost—no, not almost, I think everyone in this Chamber is in agreement about the presumption of innocence, which has existed since Roman times. The case for the directive simply has not been made by the Commission.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also mentioned the tight deadline of 12 March. I am reliably informed that the date that is important is the date when the reasoned opinion is actually sent, so if it is approved today and sent immediately, it will be valid and we will have met the deadline. He also mentioned the opt-in. He said that he was not present at the start of my speech and it may be that he missed my comments, but the Government have promised a debate on that specific issue in due course.

David Nuttall: I am grateful for that confirmation but I wonder whether the Minister misspoke. He said 12 March. Did he mean 12 March or 12 February?

Shailesh Vara: I did indeed mean 12 February and my hon. Friend is right to pick me up on that.
	This is an opportunity for the House to make it clear to the Commission that it should listen to the views of national Parliaments. I can only repeat the wish that the European Commission listen carefully to and treat with respect the concerns of this House and any other national Chambers that express a view on this important subject. That is required by the treaties, it is political good sense, and it would be an important demonstration that the Commission is indeed listening to the views of elected representatives and member states.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House considers that the Draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings (European Union Document No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Thirty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxix); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Business without Debate

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2013, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2013, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Support for Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo

That this House takes note of Unnumbered European Union Document, the European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 9/2013–EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; welcomes the Report as an important assessment of the management of EU funds which will help to ensure effectiveness; and supports the Government’s efforts in encouraging the European Commission to address the weaknesses identified in the Report to ensure improved governance programmes in the Democratic Republic of Congo.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House (12 February)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Wednesday 12 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on–
	(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to the Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion, and
	(2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Eric Pickles relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. —(Gavin Barwell.)

RURAL BUS SERVICES (NORTH YORKSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured the debate. “The wheels on the bus go round and round” is a well known expression and I hope our bus service continues.
	I should say something about the history and context of the debate. Free bus passes were started in the late 1990s under the previous Government. Initially, they were provided locally for concessionary fares, but then went national. As many hon. Members will remember, the problem was that they were not adequately funded. When they were initially rolled out locally, North Yorkshire county council and other shire counties could support them, but when the free passes for concessionary travel were rolled out nationally, there was a problem for Scarborough borough, including the ward of Filey, which is in my current constituency, and the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency. Notably, they are leisure destinations in their own right and attracted far more visitors than we had ever bargained for.
	In my view, North Yorkshire county council is acting entirely properly and responsibly in that regard, but it faces a double challenge. The first challenge is that the bus subsidy is being reduced, and the second is that it faces the national Government austerity programme. Government Members support that, but the grant to local councils is being reduced by it.
	I should like to come up with a solution to the problem and put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister, my distinguished constituency neighbour. Obviously, those to whom I have spoken in the Ryedale forum for older people, in the Filey and Hertford parts of Scarborough borough council that I represent, and those living in Thirsk and Easingwold and the parts of Hambleton district council that I represent, believe that there is no point having the free bus pass if there is no bus for them to take. I believe that the way forward is to put concessionary travel by bus on the same legal footing as travel by rail. That would allow concessionary travel to continue, but enable those who wish to avail themselves of the concessionary fares to pay a contribution.
	My understanding is that concessionary rail travellers can and do pay a contribution towards the fare, whereas bus travellers on concessionary fares will not be permitted to make a contribution, and we risk losing the service. The proposed reduction of bus services is causing great anxiety, particularly among the elderly and less mobile passengers. Buses provide a lifeline to constituents in rural communities, with many relying on those essential services to access their work—people living in rural communities often work in the towns. The elderly and more vulnerable rely on the bus services to access vital services such as doctors, hospitals and shops.

Andrew Percy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her fine speech. By making repeated cuts to services—there have been repeated cuts to the 401 service from Selby to Goole in recent years—we make the routes unsustainable in the longer term. The Selby to Goole route is important for local students, but the more services are cut, the less attractive they are to use.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope that the Minister and North Yorkshire county council have heard it.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and older people at many of my surgeries have offered to pay for bus travel. I demur slightly in that I believe that North Yorkshire county council could have consulted much more with the communities of which she talks. I urge her to urge the council to talk more to the people.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend has a point. I have been copied in to correspondence with East Ayton parish council, representing the Saxton area, which felt that consultation was insufficient and that that led to the decision that was taken being flawed. The parish council says:
	“These bus services are vital to both Parishes”—
	of East Ayton and West Ayton—
	“and are crucial to ensure that there is no isolation for those who are elderly and infirm.”

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about how important bus services are for the elderly and more vulnerable in our community in rural areas. North Yorkshire has a great rural presence, but it is not entirely rural. Buses are important in towns too, and I wonder whether we can broaden the debate to include all of our county.

Anne McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I used to represent a small part of his constituency, and I know how dependent the people there were on accessing Harrogate town.
	In Filey, Mike Cockerill, an independent councillor, is on the record as saying that he is especially concerned by the proposal to withdraw the existing Filey town service on both the Sycamore and Wharfedale routes. The county proposes to have a dial-a-ride service, but the problem with that is that it is not practical for collecting passengers and dropping them off around towns like Filey, Harrogate and others. Dial-a-ride services are far more expensive and are generally meant for trips from A to B, rather than town tour-type journeys. The operator of that service, Olympic Coaches, is well liked and respected and goes the extra mile. If a regular passenger does not turn up, the operator will dismount from the bus and call on the resident—often elderly—to check that they have not been taken ill. They also take time to assist people with their shopping bags when they board and disembark, even taking the shopping to the passengers’ front doors if they are not able to carry it.
	The routes are used by 3,500 local residents every month, so they have a substantial uptake. Without the rural bus services serving towns such as Thirsk, Easingwold, Malton, Pickering, Filey and many other smaller towns and villages, those residents will be disconnected from their rural hinterlands.
	I welcome the fact that North Yorkshire county council’s scrutiny committee took the opportunity to review its decision to reduce the services after several councillors called it in. As a result, I understand that a task force will be set up to look at the cuts that have been agreed— £1.7 million from a total budget of £4.4 million.

Nigel Adams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. The bus services are really important in a county like North Yorkshire, and we all have communities that will be affected by the proposed cuts. She makes a sensible suggestion about those pensioners who can afford to pay for their travel.
	My concern, which is shared by some of my constituents, is about North Yorkshire county council’s priorities. My hon. Friend has just mentioned the size of the cuts, but the council spends—I believe—almost £250,000 on salaries for union representatives. It seems to think that it is okay to spend that sort of money on salaries for union reps, but that sum would go a long way to saving some of these rural bus services.

Anne McIntosh: The problem is that in every other respect, the county council has behaved very responsibly. It has pared back library services. Many of us visited local libraries on Saturday and through the week to celebrate the services provided. My hon. Friend might like to secure his own Adjournment debate to pursue the valid points he makes, and which need to be looked at in greater detail.
	I personally welcome the leadership given by County Councillor David Jeffels. The county council has set up a task group that will meet for the first time a week today, on Monday 17 February. It will look at ideas, including—I hope that in summing up the debate the Minister will give us some creature comfort here—looking at the Department for Transport’s £78.5 million for local sustainable transport, the possibility of using the new homes bonus money through the district and borough councils, the dial-a-ride that I mentioned, community transport and car sharing. It is incumbent on all county councils facing cuts to try to provide solutions and share best practice.
	I would like to draw the strands together by saying that those of us who live in and represent rural communities need to ensure that we do not have a significantly worse service than those living in urban conurbations across the Yorkshire region; that young people who do not have their own transport are able to access buses to get to work; and that the elderly and less mobile can continue to access the rural bus network to go to the doctor, the dentist and the hospital. I have been given a very clear message, particularly by the Ryedale forum for older people and those I have met in Filey, Thirsk, Easingwold and across the piece, that they do not want to lose the service. They want to be in a position to continue to enjoy a concessionary fare, but pay something towards keeping the bus service running.
	I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity to ask why bus passengers are treated on a different legal basis from railway passengers. Is there some way forward that would help North Yorkshire county council to make the savings we know we have to make, but allow the bus service passengers living in rural areas—and semi-rural areas like Harrogate—to continue to enjoy the current level of service?
	I pay tribute to the commercial bus operators who, in Selby, Ripon, the villages in outer York, Goole and the outskirts of Harrogate, operate an outstanding service. The services are currently operated by commercial bus operators, with a bus subsidy administered by North Yorkshire county council. I believe that what I am
	proposing this evening is a solution that is perfectly legal and will allow the service to continue to be enjoyed by all bus users currently living in rural North Yorkshire.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. Buses play a vital role in our economy. More than 2.2 billion bus journeys were made on local buses in England, outside London, in 2012-13. Buses are essential for many people to get to work, to education, to doctors and to hospitals, as my hon. Friend remarked. For many, particularly those in rural areas, the bus is a lifeline and without it they would not be able to access those essential services or go shopping and socialise.
	Over half of those who rely on buses outside London do not have access to a car. Customer satisfaction with bus journeys is high—84% are satisfied with their service—and under-21s make up a third of bus passengers, while use among the over-60s is increasing as a result of the national concessionary pass. Furthermore, a recent study by the university of Leeds has reinforced the importance of buses to a healthy, growing economy.
	The Government remain committed to improving bus services, and expenditure on buses reflects that: this year, we will spend more than £1 billion on the concessionary travel entitlement and more than £340 million in direct subsidies to bus operators in England; more than £300 million has been allocated to funding major bus projects in the past year; and outside London 42% of the money that goes to bus operators comes from the taxpayer by one mechanism or another. We have provided £70 million through the better bus areas fund to deliver improvements in 24 local authority areas and £20 million to support community transport.
	In addition, many bus improvement schemes have been funded as part of the Government’s £600 million local sustainable transport fund, while a total of £95 million has been provided for four rounds of the green bus fund to improve environmental performance. All this demonstrates our commitment. Moreover, as a local North Yorkshire MP, I am pleased that North Yorkshire county council has received more than £5 million in local sustainable transport funding in 2012-15, including for bus improvements in Harrogate and Knaresborough and to boost tourism in Whitby and the Esk valley.
	My hon. Friend made the point that initially, when the concessionary scheme was introduced, boroughs such as mine in Scarborough and other popular tourist hotspots felt they were being unfairly treated because they were paying for journeys that started in their area. People going from Leeds or Hull to places such as Scarborough, Malton or Kirbymoorside found that although the council in Hull paid for the journey to the resort, the council in the resort paid for the return journey. The situation has been a lot better since we moved to county-level funding, however, as it means that journeys within North Yorkshire are paid for by North Yorkshire county council.
	The central question posed by my hon. Friend was, should pensioners be charged to use their concessionary passes? I believe that this would undermine the basic principle of the concessionary scheme, and many would
	probably see it as a step too far. Were any Labour Members present for this important Adjournment debate, I believe they would also underline how the principle of the concessionary scheme should be written in stone, not undermined.

Nigel Adams: Has the Minister assessed the cost of means-testing to see who can afford to pay?

Robert Goodwill: As with other benefits, such as the free television licence and the winter fuel allowance, it would be prohibitively expensive to means-test people. Also, if people had to apply for the pass, as with other means-tested pensioner benefits, we might find a much lower uptake.

Anne McIntosh: My central argument is that if it works for rail passengers—they buy a concessionary rail card and get the concessionary travel—why can it not work for bus passengers? I have been led to believe that it cannot work because the law prevents it, so I am asking the Government to change the law. It need not be means-tested—it is not means-tested for rail passengers. We just need to put rail and bus passengers on an equal footing—problem solved.

Robert Goodwill: I recently attended a meeting of my own older people’s forum in Scarborough, and the very same suggestion was made. People said, “We’ve got these bus passes, but what’s the point, if there’s no bus to use. We’d be prepared to pay a nominal charge to use some of these services, if we could retain them.” However, that would require a fundamental change to the way the system works, and it could be the thin end of the wedge, as services up and down the country—not just the ones that needed help to survive, but some of the more commercial ones—might also demand payment. It would change fundamentally the whole basis of the concessionary scheme. We do not at present have a scheme of free travel for pensioners on the railways. The discount available to pensioners or the railcards they can use are something completely different.
	As for the other services, such as the 118 from Filey to Scarborough via Flixton, some of these have three or fewer passengers, so even if we charged passengers an additional £1 to use their passes on those journeys, that would mean only £3 on some of them. Indeed, some of the services in North Yorkshire have no passengers at all. We need to be more intelligent in the way we approach this. For example, the intention is for the F1 and F2 in Filey to be dial-a-ride services to replace the buses. Indeed, there is a successful dial-a-ride service in my constituency which, let us not forget, picks the pensioners up from their homes and takes them to where they need to go. Many people with mobility problems therefore find dial-a-ride to be a superior service to the bus, which requires them to get to a bus stop and wait, often in inclement weather.
	Similarly, the 195 from Hovingham to Helmsley via Ampleforth will be reduced to three days a week, running only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, but again, that service currently carries only three or fewer passengers on some of its journeys. Interestingly, I had a telephone call last year from one of my constituents in Sleights—a lady who was a pensioner—who was concerned that the bus service there would be changed and would no longer be adequate. I asked how often she used it and
	she said, “Well, I don’t use the service myself—I’ve got a car—but the day may come when I do need a service and I’d like it to be there.” There is therefore, to a degree, an aspiration or wish to have a service in case of emergencies or if that person can no longer drive. However, may I suggest that it is not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise a service in case people might want to use it one day?

Julian Smith: Does the Minister agree that this is a difficult matter for schools such as Upper Wharfedale and Nidderdale High, which rely on children being sent by parents who are out of the catchment area? Public subsidy is needed for those parents and children, yet the council is ripping those services and that subsidy away, causing big trouble for those highly rural schools.

Robert Goodwill: I am aware that that is a problem. Indeed, the problem becomes more acute where there are no spare places on the school bus service, so that those who do not qualify for access to the free bus service—whether they be sixth-formers or people coming from out-of-catchment—find they cannot get on the school bus even if they want to pay. Therefore, cuts to services, particularly those early in the morning or in the evening, can be a problem.

Anne McIntosh: As my hon. Friend knows, Welburn school falls into that category—the bus passes it, but people are not allowed to access it. Has the Department made a comparative assessment of the cost of dial-a-ride, which I understand is much more expensive than the current Filey service? As we have established that there has been a lack of consultation, would it not make sense to sit down with the residents and see which we need to keep and which we can dispense with?

Robert Goodwill: As I understand it, North Yorkshire council has been conducting an extensive consultation and also has the ridership figures. I have looked at some of the figures for some of the services, and one of the big problems is that services are being provided that are not being used by large numbers of people. I understand that North Yorkshire is keen to maintain some sort of service wherever possible, so there might be alternative routes to use or the frequency of some services might be reduced. In one or two cases in Ripon, the operator has considered that it is able to continue to provide a service without subsidy.
	The Government also recognise that improvements can and must be made. In March 2012, our “Green Light for Better Buses” paper set out our plan for buses. The proposals include reforming bus subsidy, improving competition, incentivising partnership working and multi-operator ticketing, and making access to bus information and ticketing easier for all. There is no doubt that we are all operating in challenging economic times. The Government want to ensure that the bus market is still attractive to all operators, large and small, urban and rural, by ensuring that funding is allocated in the fairest way, while giving the best value for money to taxpayers.
	The bus service operators grant, or BSOG, paid to bus operators, has been provided directly to them in a fairly blunt and untargeted way, relating to fuel
	consumption. We need to be more intelligent in the way we target some of the support we are giving. Some local authorities have told us that they can make bus subsidy deliver better value for money by working in partnership with their bus operators to grow the bus market. That is what the five better bus areas are intended to do, and the top-up fund available to them will give them an additional incentive to innovate. One of the trailblazers is York. I will watch its progress with interest. I think Bristol would be a good comparator for rural North Yorkshire, given that the Bristol better bus area has a rural hinterland more similar to parts of North Yorkshire.
	The policy relies strongly on partnership with commercial bus operators rather than contractual relationships, which is why better bus areas are quite distinct from quality contract schemes, in which all bus services would be tendered and the bus service operators grant automatically devolved to local authorities.
	The Government are committed to protecting the national bus travel concession, which is of huge benefit to about 11 million people, allowing free off-peak local travel anywhere in England. The concession gives older and disabled people greater freedom, more independence and a lifeline to their communities, gives them access to facilities in their areas, and helps them to keep in touch with family and friends. It can also bring wider benefits to the economy. The Government recognise that the issue of young people’s travel and the level of fares is a complex one, but, although there is no statutory obligation to provide discount-price travel for young people, many commercial and publicly funded reductions are available.
	Bus services in rural areas are not just concerned with levels of public funding. Commercial operators will provide services in areas where there are enough passengers, and overall commercial mileage in very rural areas of England is increasing. However, the Government accept that when that is not feasible, local authorities play a vital role in supporting rural bus services. Indeed, about 28% of bus mileage in predominately rural authorities is operated under contract to them. Authorities such as North Yorkshire county council are best placed to decide what support to provide, in response to local views and need and in the light of their overall funding priorities. It is therefore vital for them to maximise the return on every penny of the funding that they provide. To help with that, in October last year my Department met its commitment to publish revised guidance for local authorities on best practice in the procurement of local bus services and other types of road passenger transport. While I recognise that much innovation and hard work is done by councils all over the country, I believe that there is scope for them to do more, not least by highlighting and sharing some really good practice on which other authorities can draw—and I strongly urge them to do so.
	Providing bus transport solutions in rural areas also requires effective use of all available options, whether they be traditional fixed-route bus services, community buses, dial-a-ride, or other types of demand-responsive transport such as taxis. My Department is currently undertaking further work in examining the barriers to better procurement of such services.

Julian Smith: May I urge the Minister and the Department to analyse the performance of organisations, such as the Dales Integrated Transport Alliance in my
	constituency, which have been given grants as part of the local sustainability fund, which he mentioned, and to think about whether they have provided value for money?

Robert Goodwill: That is exactly the point that I was trying to make when I spoke of sharing best practice and assessing the effectiveness with which different local authorities have deployed the funds that they have been given
	The Government believe in buses. Our vision is of a “'better bus” with more of what passengers want: punctual, interconnected services; greener and more fully wheelchair-accessible buses; and widely available smart ticketing. A more attractive, more competitive and greener bus network will encourage more passengers, cut carbon and create growth.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.